The wonderful clarity of white genocide

Naturally she was appointed to the editorial board of the New York Times.

Needless to say this appointment has been stoutly defended by every goodthinking leftist, though I see some white male leftists showing symptoms of mental breakdown, their mask of sanity slipping.

Interestingly, some conservative commentators have also rushed to the defense of Sarah Jeong, their arguments inevitably sliding into implicit advocacy of white genocide. What characteristic do all these conservatives have in common?

‘Tis a mystery. </sarcasm>

“The Cathedral” accurately depicts our enemies as the centralized and authoritarian movement that they in fact are.

The puritan hypothesis depicts them as the pharisaical holier than thou religious fanatics that they are in fact are, which account is more concisely expressed as “Social Justice Warrior”.

All men are supposedly created equal. Observed inequality must, therefore, be the result of “hate”. Evil noticers are supposedly causing the underperformance that they notice. Thus, war on noticing. Since underperformance continues, the punishment of whites and males must be endlessly escalated. Endless escalation of punishment must eventually manifest as ethnic cleansing and genocide.

I see white non Jewish social justice warriors getting crazier, as trapped in their own logic, they are reasoning their way to their own destruction. Jewish social justice warriors tend more to evil and less to madness, though, like Scott, male Jews are apt reason their way to self destruction to punish themselves for their maleness, while enthusiastically supporting the destruction of non Jewish whites without ensuing mental disorder. So male Jews tend to be driven to madness by their maleness, while non Jewish social justice warriors are driven to madness both by their maleness and by their whiteness.

Since the focus is now on the extermination of whites, rather than the emasculation of males, the Jewish Question is becoming more true, and the Puritan hypothesis less relevant. But we still have plenty of action on the emasculation of males, for which thinking too much about the Jewish question is apt to mislead and confuse.

When World War T was winding down, we wondered what the next big cause for leftism would be. I was thinking that maybe they would come out with some brilliantly clever reasons why castrating nine year old boys and turning them into sex toys for gays was liberating, but men having sex with seventeen year old girls was worse than the holocaust, and we have been seeing some of that. Very young boys are being liberated from being oppressed by their horrid their toxic male identity. But it has not really received power support.

With the Francisco Sanchez acquitted because he shot Kathryn Steinle on the Embarcadero for being white, and Sarah Jeong being appointed to the editorial board of the New York Times, it is clear what the next big left wing cause will be.

The next big leftwing cause is killing all white people.

It is not like they appointed some fifty year old fat gay who recently emancipated his recently adopted nine year old boy child from toxic masculinity, which is what I was half expecting.

I am seeing a whole lot of schizophrenia among white progressives. They know this, and they do not know it. They support it, and they do not support it. Massive doublethink and split personality.

It is interesting how completely normal and mainstream the advocacy of white genocide feels. They are telling us that we must be hateful, evil, and crazy to disagree.

In the George Zimmerman Trayvon Martin case, it was obvious that those who supported Trayvon were advocating genocide, but they could plausibly deny it, deny it to themselves, because, after all, Zimmerman deliberately shot Trayvon through the heart when Trayvon attacked him, while Trayvon was merely indifferent as to whether he was endangering Zimmerman’s life by his attack on Zimmerman. Zimmerman aimed for the heart, and knew his shot was true.

But with everyone who defends and supports Sarah Jeong, there is no real ambiguity. They want to kill us all. If they are going to come up with some motte and bailey argument “we are not actually advocating white genocide, we are actually advocating …”, what is the motte? If they are not advocating white genocide, what are they advocating?

During the Trayvon case, I would point out to a Trayvon supporter that she (and it was usually a white woman) was advocating white genocide, in that though she was supposedly arguing that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon, she was actually presenting arguments that Trayvon was right to attack Zimmerman. And often she would realize that she was arguing that, and respond “Well, yes, but Zimmerman could have solved the problem without lethal force” (The implicit assumption not being that white people need killing, but rather being that white people are not only expected to behave well, but use their super magic powers to prevent other races from behaving badly, and if other races behave badly, it is the fault of white males.)

OK, so what is the motte in the Sarah Jeong case? When you advocate the eradication of white people, not a lot of ambiguity remaining. When you support someone who advocates the eradication of white people, not a lot of ambiguity remaining.

Anti-White hatred is channeled through Trump, which explains why the rage against Trump is so unhinged.

Democracy is going to kill us all. People inevitably vote their tribe and their religion, which inevitably tends towards tribal warfare and holy war. The Democrats brought in hostile tribes for a vote bank, as the Populares allied with the Samnites against the Optimates. Of course the Samnites did not care about the differences between Populares and Optimates. They intended to level Rome and kill all Romans, Populares and Optimates both. And now the Democrats have a brown problem, as the Populares had a Samnite problem.

For us to survive, Democracy and the Constitution has got to go, and the Declaration of Independence needs to be taught in schools as treason against the King motivated by religious fanaticism. There is no middle course that ends with us alive. While the Jewish role in the promotion of genocide is obvious, they are simultaneously becoming irrelevant as their pets push them aside. Just as the Jewish question becomes more relevant, it renders itself irrelevant as the processes they set in motion escalate beyond their control. To focus unduly on the Jewish Question is to suppose that we can solve this problem while retaining Democracy, the Constitution, and the Declaration of independence. The Jewish role in advocacy of white genocide is obvious, but if you focus unduly on Jews, you think you can set things back to yesterday’s leftism, back to 1933 leftism. The course we are on was not set by Jews, but by the founders. If all men are created equal, then it follows that I must be causing the problems encountered by black military age Muslims in Subsaharan Africa, in which case they all are entitled to claim asylum and come here to live on crime, welfare, and voting Democrat, a conclusion that, however congenial to Jews and Democrats, logically follows from the Declaration of Independence. And even if we gassed every Jew, still a conclusion highly congenial to the representatives of fifty percent of the voters. We cannot afford the Declaration, and we cannot afford one man one vote, Jews or no Jews.

This entry was posted on Monday, August 6th, 2018 at 08:11 and is filed under war. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Her take was that the natural world was under significant threat from mass ‘development’ and animal extinction, combined with a high risk of economic problems in the near future, combined with likely insane political correctness and social tension/unrest.

My take was that we’d likely either have our kid taken off us by the ‘teachers’ or else be hated for having lied for the first twenty years, combined with the problems of living as a minority, combined with everything she said and combined with the fact the system’s designed to make it nigh-on impossible for us (let alone our children) to ever manage a safe, healthy lifestyle with home formation, etc.

Where we both ended up was that it’s necessary to accept reality as it is, rather than focus solely on how it ought to be in ways we can’t influence in any way; that in this reality there are still precious things we can control and appreciate, and we should focus on those, while not driving ourselves to insanity and suicide by focusing on the myriad evil forces we’re utterly impotent to even mitigate or slow down, let alone change or stop.

Best case scenario? The ghost of Adolf Hitler returns to save the world from left-wing puritan progressives and we’re proven wrong and look foolish.
Yep, that’s the BEST case scenario.

(Sure, Moldbug/Rockwell ‘patchwork’ private citystates would be nice, but then so would seasteading or ‘Liberland’. So would a Jacobite restoration with prince whatever his name is as King of France and Ireland. So would etc. etc. etc. but impossible beyond any shadow of a doubt.)

(In fact, so’s the Hitler scenario: The International Community would soon put paid to that, like they did last time – don’t like gypsies and trannies? Fine, we’ll fire-bomb your towns and you can melt into primal proto-organic compounds.)

It’s night time for the West. They won and we lost. If they get murdered by savages, sure we might smirk but it’ll be a hollow ‘victory’. Shakespeare and Beethoven will be long gone (arguably already are), along with facial beauty, spontaneous empathy, saving&investment, good manners, non-slush food and eventually literacy, electricity and indoor plumbing.

Maybe there’s a reason we’ve not detected any signs of life in the universe: intelligence and civilisation was tried and it always failed.

In other words my immediate comfort is more important than a future for my kids or grandkids You are no Restorationist that’s for sure.

Frankly this fight isn’t for us anyway its for our decedents so they live like proper human beings , we are fighting for a future, a rational achievable one , a dignified one where we live among our own kind, by our own customs

Ancient Hebrews got this (the entire myth cycle of Exodus is about this) and even Leftists get the idea of fighting for tomorrow

why so many on the Right don’t is beyond me, maybe being capitalism makes people stupid.

A last point, you do realize you are going to die some day soon ? Why not do something with your life other than complain and be afraid of bogeyman

Maybe your time to be on the firing line or firing squad will come, maybe it won’t . Right now you have resources and the chance of a child, you ought to think maybe that’s what you are needed for.

You’re pointing out the failure of not acting, but what you’re not talking about is the likely success of action.

What do you plan to do in order to solve the problems of our time? Sarah Jeong and what she represents is REAL. Jim’s not joking. The above article is not hyperbole: if anything it’s pathologically reasonable!

You think just putting your fingers in your ears and carrying on as normal is the best outcome?

Fine so what happens when your child comes home from school having been told they’re guilty for the sin of racial disparate outcomes in the current year?

Do you lie and leave her vulnerable, or do you take on the school and risk losing custody for being a Nazi?

If you think these are non-problems that strong people just shrug off then why are you even reading this article? Surely it’s just a laugh to you, something to pretend to care about when in fact deep down you’re not worried at all.

Some of the best people the world has ever seen were born into the worst families, Im talking pure evil. And some of the worst monsters were born in the best households. It is no more up to you that he succeeds or fails then you can say with 100% certainty that any venture you embark on will succeed or fail.

Your son will have it hard enough with the leftists, feminists, maniacs, etc. but you and your woman are the ones who are denying him even the chance to fight.

The difference now is that a portion of your own population has decided that you aren’t needed. This is because they believe in materialism over God. In the rat population , when they have filled out their numbers, the larger rats will eat the smaller rats so as to balance the population be the food supply.

Right now you are being eaten.

The solution to this is not to bare your throat. And it’s not even to wantonly destroy other men. It is to choose Life.

The Creator of this world wants people to be fruitful and multiply. He wants me to do it, hence why I am torturing myself trying to learn game; and he wants you to do it as well.

Your woman doesn’t have an ethical obligation to have children, she may have a desire, but female desires are like the breeze. Great if it’s there, irrelevant if it isn’t

You on the other hand will be called to give account if you do not have at least one boy and one girl. And frankly you should have a lot more than that.

When king Chizkiyahu saw with prophecy that his sons would be evil he intentionally separated from his wife. He the severly I’ll. I don’t remember offhand but I think it was the prophet Yeshayahu that was commanded by God to tell Chizkiyahu that he was going to die for not having children. Chizkiyahu said “but I saw with divine sight that they would be evil” the prophet replied “what is it to you what they will be or not? That is the business of God”. So Chizkiyahu repented and had children. Who not incidentally did turn out evil. That was king Menashe. But in the end Menashe actually repented.

Similarly, when the ancient Jews were in Egypt, their leader was Amram, Moses’ father. When the Egyptians decreed that all male children were to be killed, Amram decreed that all Jewish men had to separate from their wives and cease procreation. Yocheved, his wife, came to him and said “what you are doing is even worse than what Pharoah is doing. He only is killing the Jewish boys, you are destroying even the girls”. Amram listened and rescinded his judgement. Immediately afterwards Yocheced conceived Moshe, the man who did more for humanity than any man before or since. Without Moshe, the divine instruction of God would have been out of all our hands. All of Western civilization, all the good we have done, restaining human impulses in fealty to Gods will, all from him. Without the Bible, even for non believers, we would have been as blind men in a noisy room.

You don’t know what your child can become. There is a woman named Moira Greyland, her father and mother repeatedly raped her till she put a stop to it at the age of 12. Now she is one of the bravest people confronting child abuse. A beautiful and courageous woman.

Why did two such evil people deserve to have such a descendant? Because for all their evil, they did give life a chance.

Ron is right. Things have ALWAYS been bad, but people reproduce anyway, and many succeed. Plow that field, you coward, sow your seed or you are a useless waste of air. Our times are unique, but not as unique as you think. Things have been this bad before, many times in the past. Humanity got through. Make sure it is YOUR seed that gets through. You can’t do that if you don’t have any!

Have eight kids and homeschool them. Live next to your siblings so your neighbors are on your side.
Child services tried to take away my homeschool friends for years, but were never successful.
Religions taught in secret build a stronger identity, especially if they are attacked by fat ugly tackle-faced freaks.

Bob is absolutely correct. you have internalized what the left wants you to do and are doing it. I remember all the crap going around in my social group in the 80’s . ” I’m not going to have a kid so they can be incinerated in the nuclear war that Reagan will surely start!” I told those fools not to listen to the media then , and I’m telling you now. listen to bob. MY kids are the brightest joy in my life. they are all adults now.

It’s especially important to keep your girls home. Let them help mom take care of the babies (most have a strong instinct to do this and enjoy it anyway).
Public schools are bad for boys but much worse for girls. My oldest boy goes to public high school (granted a UMC nerd school) and many if not most of the boys are delightfully deplorable.

To inoculate him against the poz. What’s the alternative? To homeschool a kid, and then have him get seduced by the left wing’s pretty lies when encountering them for the first time as a teenager, reading on his own, and inclined to rebellion anyway? My kids are still pretty young, so I have no firsthand experience of teenagers; and perhaps avoiding public school is in fact a good strategy for a kid whose personality tends toward blind acceptance, which as “bruce” writes above probably includes more girls than boys.

But for kids with a healthy dollop of skepticism by nature, I like my strategy better. I let them in on a great secret: math class excepted, some of the things they hear from the teachers and read in the textbooks are just plain not true, even if some of the teachers actually believe them! This is because the real point of school is to learn to think for yourself, so pay attention and see if you can figure out when you’re being tricked.

My eight-year-old loves being in the know on this secret which even her teachers aren’t privy to, and periodically lets me know what stuff from class she doesn’t quite buy. She brought up both the “Big Bang” as a complete explanation for the universe, and kids with “two mommies”, with appropriate skepticism. So far, so good. Schools talk about “life skills”– well, this is a way to inculcate an important one without too much overhead.

Just so. At a church we used to attend there was a sermon to the effect that “if you aren’t teaching your children, and expect them to become Christians because they ‘go to church’, oh boy you could be in for an awakening.” We could talk about homeschool; I’m not going to, right now, except to mention that mine are homeschooled, but rest assured that even though they are all under 10 they are all certainly being taught already that sometimes grownups lie.

I was homeschooled in a liberal area. My mom’s contempt for popular culture grated on me. But my exposure to leftism, poz, etc was always negative, especially compared to my positive experiences with Christian homeschoolers.

According to facebook, my friends my age from my church are swinging a little left. My homeschool friends, in my church or another sect, are swinging right. Hard right. The exception is girls who were told they were princess’ by their dads.

This is disappointing… facebook is the most important front because a lot of normie voters vote how they think their friends want them to.

I would think about the future. As part of my restoration anti leftist purge (were I in charge) any white male who was against Trump on facebook or for the Democrats anytime after 2012 (when they stopped really hiding who they were) would get a blindfold and a cigarette. This blog would get you spared but I’m dead serious that I think supporting leftism in facebook should be an ex post facto capital offense come the restoration.

We should not be less ruthless about purges (I mean initially after its done we should not do it as much, permanent revolution is a leftist thing) then the left is.

I’m in a deep blue area, I’ve gotten a lot of unfriends (and some converts) but haven’t gotten banned. I suppose somebody COULD try to f*** with my job but likely I won’t need to worry about that kind of thing ever again come next month.

I’ve been loudly and openly for Trump since August 2015. I’ve even posted links to this blog in comment threads (though given Jim’s more extreme stances that even I’m leery of being identified with) though not on my page itself.

Nah, they have AI profiling people to detect crimethink, and then humans check the AI, and then they shadowban you, and then when you ask an in-real-life chick to friend you on Facebook, she does a search on her phone right in front of you, and you do not show up.

If you are using Facebook to cruise for chicks, better be lefter than thou and rigidly police any possible connections between your Facebook identity and other identities. Google shares information that it has on Google identities with other social media for the purpose of rooting out hidden rightists, so even if your facebook identity is holier than thou, if it is connected to a Google email address that watches unholy YouTube channels, likely to be shadowbanned.

Many think that FB has some sort of AI to detect crimethink, but I don’t see it. I see it relying on reports. It probably does have some heuristic that determines which reports show up on the screen of the genderhaired xirs who then decide what to do with you, and it could also have an automatic shadowban heuristic, but it’s all driven by user reports.

There could be local differences of course. Maybe the “AI” only understands English. I haven’t seen any difference between English and non-English posts/comments getting flagged though, as long as they don’t reach the “antifa”.

>>>”…so what happens when your child comes home from school having been told they’re guilty for the sin of racial disparate outcomes in the current year?”<<<

You teach them at home.

I'm 51. I have three kids, 2, 9 & 11 years old. It's my DUTY to teach them, protect them and do EVERYTHING I can to ensure they at least have a chance at a fruitful life. It's a big responsibility, and often damned inconvenient. But I accept it, it's my job now.

The others were right about you being a coward. I'd add lazy and myopic, as well.

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were once our
countrymen." — Samuel Adams

Cause, mark that. But do even think these maroons stand a snowballs chance in h-ll of pulling it off?

Me and mine are hunters and veterans = (read as) We stalk wild animals in their homes without detection then shoot then from long range, field dress the consume. Veterans (read as) were all once trained killers.

I honestly never understood that one. It’s like you gave up without even trying. You are a high IQ Christian Anglo white heterosexual male on the most right-wing blog ever, and here you are coming up with a plethora of clever rationalizations why your genetic line should not continue. It’s unbelievable, really. You’re committing autogenocide for no good reason (there are no good reasons for autogenocide).

It’s just so disappointing. I suggest that you re-consider this decision. Think this one through, m8.

Should a person of superior genetic stock, high intellect, and upright morality, avoid reproduction because his descendants *might* be martyred by the Cathedral’s minions?

Perhaps you think emotionally rather than logically about the matter. Your emotions say, “Losing a child to bloodthirsty monsters feels worse than not having a child at all, therefore one should not reproduce these days.”

No offense intended, but this is a womanish line of thinking: in order to avoid heartbreak, in order to avoid [bad thing], you tell people that it makes the most sense to not have kids. But it’s not rational at all.

It’s just your protective emotions telling you that the best way to “protect” one’s children is to not have them; it’s like saying, “People should remain celibate, because something bad might happen to their prospective spouses.” There’s a flaw in that thinking, y’know.

Let him go. He wont be much help anyway. Most people with no investment in the future won’t fight anyway. People with kids and grandchildren will fight to the last drop of blood. Those with nothing at stake will give up as soon as things get dark.

That’s why the European heads of state like Merkel and Macron won’t protect their own nations from the migrant hordes. They have no children or grandchildren to sacrifice their lives for. Their only concern is their personal comfort and lifestyle.

How many kids do you have? Are you suggesting that because you and your peers threw in the towel for access to weed and porn that nothing else can be done? Boomers are a fucking blight on civilization.

Whites are the most formidable race militarily. Which leads to the problem that whites are wolf to whites, that there will never be white ethnic solidarity, but not because we are too weak, because we are too strong.

I am very pessimistic about the future of the West, but don’t see not having a child as something that follows from it. My daughter is 4. I imagine her twenty years later being disgusted by the betahood of Western whites, somehow avoiding the trap of burning coal, and marrying a based Eastern European, Russian, or Chinese dude and living in those kinds of countries happily ever after. It’s not impossible, especially if we get parenting right. Maybe not highly probable either, but she will have these kinds of choices open for her that lead to predictably good results, so it will be mostly her own fault if she messes up.

You don’t have to live in the belly of the beast where all schools are crazy. You could move to Shanghai. Or if you want Western comfort as long as it lasts, somewhere on the peripheria of the West. We actually live close to the peripheria in a European context, in a US/Anglo context, either Deep South or Australian outback could work.

What are your grandchildren going to do when they’re a minority being blamed for everything? When dog’s muck through the letter box can’t be reported to the police because they’ll just laugh and arrest you for racism…..

Do we have an obligation to put our children in harm’s way?

It’s possible that we do. Just when I thought this pill couldn’t get any blacker.

We have more guns than our enemies, and, more importantly, far more importantly, we understand what is happening. We know ourselves and know our enemies. Our enemies do not understand what is happening, and do not know us, nor themselves. This guarantees that they will blunder into war, internal or external, most likely both, and lose it.

The idea we need to propagate here is that we can’t be merciful this time. Pinochet only killed 3000 after stopping the leftist coup. Gotta pump those number up, those are rookie numbers. If 60 or so million people voted for Hillary we ought to be able to approach the Mao record once we win.

99% of male leftists need to be dealt with permanently (the only exceptions should be top level scientist and engineers). I don’t go so far as arguing for the full Jim program for all women but those leftist women in their young hot phase who are spared (post menopausal female leftists have to go as if they were men) need to become non hereditary slaves.

The leaders must be seen to be killed, preferably in ways that dishonor them, like by having the right to kill them sold to common men and having it be seen done on pay-per-view.

The great mass of leftist men who showed up at protests for college credits at most, donated more protest snacks than they ever ate, volunteered for causes for resume points maybe, these men are already punished by the loss of the things they donated, and will continue to be punished by the humiliation of having participated for the rest of their lives. We can even encourage the humiliation by providing women with a special dispensation to divorce a man who was a leftist, maybe we claim the marriage is invalid because the man wasn’t aware of what it meant.

People will be arguing for the next hundred years about whether grandpa was a secret right-winger. Getting everyone to pretend to have always been us is a strength.

We don’t recognize the political opinions of cows. Cows can be owned, the usual case, or can be bartending or babysitting, or they can be nuns, but pregnancies out of wedlock get aborted and there shall be government feed for wayward cows.

“The great mass of leftist men who showed up at protests for college credits at most, donated more protest snacks than they ever ate, volunteered for causes for resume points maybe, these men are already punished by the loss of the things they donated, and will continue to be punished by the humiliation of having participated for the rest of their lives. We can even encourage the humiliation by providing women with a special dispensation to divorce a man who was a leftist, maybe we claim the marriage is invalid because the man wasn’t aware of what it meant.”

I don’t think they should “stay” above ground but if they are should not be allowed women other then perhaps going to the whorehouse.

Good point. A significant number of people who are leftist in public may not be sincerely leftist – kinda like Vaclav Havel’s “GreenGrocer.” And I’m not just talking about students getting extra credit. I’m talking about powerful and wealthy people pretending to be leftist for temporary reasons.

Czar Vladimir Putin pretended to be liberal until he began seizing power. I suspect there might be one or more among the Space Barons.

White leftists wishing to escape the slaughter should be required to pass the following test: Before a camera, state your full name and all places you’ve lived, worked, or studied. Then declare that Adolph Hitler is the greatest man who ever lived and give a few “Seig heil!” salutes. Finally, eat a nice thick, juicy slice of roast nigger, praise the chef, and ask for seconds. All videos will be uploaded to a public archive and cross-indexed for easy searching.

I don’t really care what you think of Hitler; he and his movement are long dead. It’s just a way to prove you’re not a leftist anymore. As software must be constantly patched to fix new vulnerabilities, so too the official state religion must often add new purity tests to root out the latest heresies.

Wrong test as Hitler was in many respects a leftist (read the table talks).

A better test would be something like saying Joe McCarthy was basically right but didn’t go far enough.

But in general I think only extraordinary skills or having served as a secret double agent (ala my man Comey) should spare you. The lukewarm people who conformed with the left should go with them. God will know his own.

We’ve been merciful in the past and the cancer comes back, time to try it the other way. Lets not half ass doing it the other way.

True but not important. Muhammad used Jesus to signal his own status as a prophet, yet he and his followers neither know nor care about anything Jesus said or did. We won’t be making our children read Mein Kampf, only using Hitler as a symbol of our extreme anti-leftism. Think of it as having the boogeyman on your side.

That would create a tendency to spiral into a national socialist system. Use Pinochet, use Joe McCarthy.

It would also throw away what I think is one of the great advantages of both neoreaction and the modern alt right over the stormcuck larpers.

We can play divide and conquer with the jews and people who like jews, we can have the Orthodox and the Zionists side with us most of the time. Stormfag larpers immediately make them turn ALL hostile.

The optics of Hitler are too bad even for many on our side. When asked about Hitler our side should say we’re not like Hitler, he killed innocent people and we only kill leftist and leftists are not people.

Hard to answer. I am reading schizophrenic double think from leftists in person, so they are sensing mass murder heading their way, but I am not reading similar sensations from leftists over the internet, who seem to totally believe that after the blue wave election, they throw Trump in jail, and everything then returns to normal.

Slower than expected and behind schedule – I was expect stuff to get more dramatic, earlier. The acquittal of Zimmerman for self defense slowed stuff down, as did the election of Trump, but the acquittal of Francisco Sanchez for his race hate motivated shooting of a white woman is resumption of expected movement left, somewhat behind schedule.

Wife and sons laughed their ass off the other day when Trump called two prominent blacks Dumb & Dumber on national TV and called an African congresswoman “low IQ.” Trump gets it, we know he gets it and my sons know the left hates them and wants them gone. Things are not going to go back to business as usual.

FWIW we decided to do the r-strategy thing – 8 children and counting. Wife is more “deplorable” than I am. Children are a big biological investment for a woman. Women that have a lot of white male children, hate people that hate white males.

Everyone here sincerely hopes that your children and all their grandchildren have wonderful fulfilling lives and that their grandchildren in turn are born into a world that at least doesn’t despise them.

This doesn’t look good. I’d tell you to go back to your girl and say you’ve changed your mind. Stow away your pessimism and lead your woman with enthusiasm. There shall be children! The Breeder’s Equation shall not be denied!

(Pragmatically, I’ve furthermore experienced and seen relationships peter out or explode after deciding to not procreate. Since even if it’s in the background, it’s usually the point.)

everything a cow is or does is ultimately about the calves. Cows are born with all their calves inside their ovaries waiting to be given the other half of their DNA.

It’s true that cows can be convinced to pretend they don’t want calves, by romcoms that tell them that the guy who they’re the last on the booty call list of is one day going to give them his calves. Never mistake a cow’s lowing for philosophy of vocation.

You cucked out like the miserable faggot you are. Now she’s going to leave you and find a real man, one with activated almonds.

You have painted yourself into a corner. You now must “oops” her. It is the only way. Will-to-life, faggot. If a Syrian can have six children in a refugee camp, you can have some in what is still more or less a free country.

Here are your options: Man up and spawn some White soldiers, become celibate, or stop dating White women. When your pessimism renders you sterile you must not hoard White uterus, else you are doing the enemy’s work for them.

“Ask not what your nation can do for you, but what you can do for your nation”
— Holy Martyr JFK

“Rest in peace Mr. President (JFK), through your wisdom and strength, since your tragic death, Patriots have planned, installed, and by the grace of God, activated, the beam of LIGHT. We will forever remember your sacrifice. May you look down from above and continue to guide us as we ring the bell of FREEDOM and destroy those who wish to sacrifice our children, our way of life, and our world. We, the PEOPLE.” — Q’s prayer

The nation is the hand of the race, the family is the finger of the nation, the individual is the fingernail. If your vocation is to fight, tell your cow whatever it needs to hear while you avoid seeding its’ fallopian tubes and instead mine more minerals and prepare to fight. Otherwise, tell your cow whatever it needs to hear while spawning more overlords.

Don’t talk politics with your cow. At best, it confuses it, at worst, it makes it difficult for your cow to chew cud with the other cows, and cows need to be part of a herd.

The level of politics to talk with your cow is, America is good, we are an American family, nice things are good, criminals are bad because they ruin nice things, having nice things is the only valid virtue signal, tasteful religious displays on nice things are great, ugly religious and political displays on ugly things are stupid evil heresy, ignore any advice from the news and entertainment media because it’s a bunch of pedophiles raping each other.

Self-ownership is retarded. However, policing whether other people are excessively self-indulgent is even more retarded. People succeed by their success. Policing self-indulgence is usually an intentional diversion of resources from policing actual crime.

Broodwar reflects the NR view that there are multiple leaders and factions and individuals must balance their loyalty to their leader and faction with their family, nation, and race. Gerard DuGalle was stupid to trust Duran and Alexei Stukov paid for his loyalty to DuGalle with his life and the future of the UED.

SC2 reflects the Progressive view that there’s one holy mission that every creature must support.

“In fact, so’s the Hitler scenario: The International Community would soon put paid to that, like they did last time – don’t like gypsies and trannies? Fine, we’ll fire-bomb your towns and you can melt into primal proto-organic compounds.”

The International Community can be destroyed with nuclear weapons. That’s plan B if the God Emperor and/or the Space Barons fail.

I have lived and worked in the imperial center of Poz for most of my life, and my social network consists largely of leftist true believers. My family and friends might as well be directly ruled by the Democratic National Committee, NPR and SPLC, and donate money to all three. Despite this, I think and speak freely without significant negative consequences. The key is to (1) develop the reputation of a blunt talker from day one, so people get accustomed, (2) speak in quantitative/objective terms that are not subject to a lot of interpretation and distortion of what you say, (3) treat it as the obvious, everybody-knows-or-should common sense that it is rather than something being argued or requiring a disclaimer. I successfully redpill not only Hillary voters, but Hillary fundraisers, about things like immigration, idiocracy, and the reality of race/gender/IQ correlations without anyone having come for my head.

My offspring go to a school with many Poz characteristics. Not ideal, but it is not hard to educate them in realism and counter the Narrative when the need or opportunity arises. It helps in this to get the kid used to the idea that their school and their friends are often wrong, and also get them used to checking the logic of things for themselves instead of taking assertions at face value.

You are a religious believer, and probably are in a redder area than I am, both of which would make it easier. The election of Trump and the rise of his equivalents in Europe is another thing in your favor, and that trend will continue. If the Left were all-powerful to the point of being able to squelch the uprising they would have done so. Slowly but surely reality is having its say and the left is getting weaker.

Thank you for the input, everyone. I probably shouldn’t have ‘shared’ but the advice given has certainly been thought-provoking and many of the arguments irrefutable (in the good sense lol).

For the time being however, the risk of going to war with the ruling majority is still somewhat prohibitive. I’m back on the fence, so thank you. It’s not as clear as it was. It’s still super-risky but the stakes are high and the option of creating a secure bubble isn’t especially realistic given how rapidly things are moving.

Back on topic, let’s hope Trump survives. We may have to pay lipservice to things that sicken us for a while. Doing that is not a betrayal of any principle: the supreme principle is to do what we can to stop the genocide.

I hope Trump survives too… because Plan B involves either submitting to be murdered (Asians like me are next after the Whites), or nuking DC, NYC, Cambridge MA, LA, Seattle, Austin, Chicago and other blue islands.

Donald J. Trump is President of the United States. This means two things:

1. Anything is possible.
2. Our adversaries are weaker than they seem.

Remember the Stockdale Paradox:

“You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end—which you can never afford to lose—with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.”

Yes things are screwed up right now, but with the right principles and organization they can be fixed.

Go have children. Teach them well, let their Free Will take care of the rest.

For me the self-destructivity of the Left is something very hard to understand. I tend to believe Nassim Taleb saying when people have skin in the game they are usually not crazy about their self-interests, and generally it is much more common to think someone evil is going to hurt you but they themselves will gain from it than to think they too get hurt by it.

The only way I can make sense of the Left, and the process of the Left getting ever lefter and moving towards the leftist singularity is what I would call the fragmentation of coalitions. Or the fragmentation of cooperation.

This is a Carlylean view. In a good society, there is order and it means everybody cooperates. The defectors are called criminals and get punished or cast out into exile. The first fragmentation is a cabal trying to stage a revolution and taking over power from the ruling class, becoming the new ruling class. They defect on the current ruling class and to a large extent on everybody else, but cooperate with each other in a coalition. This sets into motion a dynamic where the new coalition, successful or not, fragments into two, then three, then more coalitions each competing with each other for power, until it breaks down to every man for himself. Something like the groupuscules of the French student revolutionary era, where on e.g. the Sorbonne multiple anarchist, multiple Trotsykte, and multiple Maoists little groups competed with each other.

This would at least fit the Carlylean order vs. chaos narrative.

But it is hard to grasp, for me, because it is not common to think in these terms. In every supervillain movie the villain wants order – an order ruled by himself. Becoming the next Stalin. In the common, usual thinking, evil, even leftism, means tyranny, i.e. order based on the will of one. Everybody cooperating with the one and thus with each other.

Seeing leftism and evil as chaos, fragmentation, into smaller and smaller groups that refuse to cooperate with each other is a novel angle, an unusual angle, and it is hard to think in this framework…

You almost answer your own question. The modal leftist doesn’t have skin in the game. They are bioleninist and don’t have anything to put at risk.
That, plus the extreme divergence between the leftist’s short-term interests and long-term interests. In the short term, going against the holiness spiral loses them their job and all their so-called friends. It’s only self-destructive in the long term or on the wide scope. That new NYT editor whose name I can’t be arsed to remember – this helps cement the existing ‘friend’ships of the existing editorial board, but is rather less effective on the wider network of alliances.

>The modal leftist doesn’t have skin in the game. They are bioleninist and don’t have anything to put at risk.

The point of bioleninism is exactly to get people with skin in the game. Either you’re a born bioleninist and your only hope of having status is the bioleninist project or you’re a made bioleninist and your behavior and appearance are now so repulsive that without bioleninism you’ll be shunned by all decent people. That’s skin in the game.

The NYT – or any other mass media rag sheet exists by selling copy and advertising. They’re dying now because of that. Every white person in America with a pulse and a triple digit IQ has regarded the NYT as a comic strip, and they go to the internet for their news.

Hiring a racist chinklette is a brilliant marketing strategy. Consider: whites are too smart to let the Times be their voice. Even lefties admit their uselessness and will not rely on them to shape their opinions. Liberals “walking away” is a thing now. Hiring the chink does a number of things for the Times: it’s controversial and spectacular for the ratings. It attracts viewership and loyalty from the vibrant demographic and a possible new audience for a desperate failing business.

This mar very well be the final nail in the NYT’s coffin too. When those lefties get that red pill suppository rammed up their asses good and hard – and civil war is staring them full in the face… they’ll back down. This is good for everyone, really. I saw recently that the NYT accused Trump of racism because of comments about LeBron Dindu… and the response from their readership was laughter and ridicule. These guys will destroy themselves with no help from us.

>NYT is not important and it can’t sell ads
Jesus Christ, it’s not about ads, and it never was. It’s about power. The NYT could lose billions a year and it would still be worth owning for its ability to set the American discourse. It will have no trouble finding patrons willing to run it at a “loss”.
>But I don’t trust that durn’d commie rag, and nobody I know does either!
Doesn’t matter. It’s gradually losing influence, but it’s still the single most powerful media entity on Earth. People disagree with the Grey Lady, but they disagree with her about the topics she picks when she decides to pick them. If the NYT decides something is big news, everyone in both old and new media talks about it for weeks. That is POWER.
>These guys will destroy themselves with no help from us.
Not the way you mean, boomer. Sure, they’ll eat each other after they’ve finished with us – that’s the way of the holiness spiral – but that comes after they’ve crushed us and utopia mysteriously fails to appear. They’ve been running the table for the last 200 years – why would they give up without a fight now? Even you, Mr. Manly Self-Made Harley-Rider with the big house in the exurbs, eat from leftist professors’ hands.

Some day more successful men will pay more than I make in a year to be locked in a cage with a professor or a journalist.

The very ideas of colleges and media institutions are out of fashion, superseded by blogs and wikis and forums. The idea of equality is out of fashion now that there aren’t any nice things to steal anymore, the idea of being too important to notice being cucked now sounds utterly retarded.

Uh huh. Set the discourse, huh? Like they did when Trump got elected? Is that what they’re doing now when when they drive home the hypocrisy and double standards that alienate even their own subscribers? Like you they’re clowns that entertain the masses.

If this is the last bastion of leftist media power you can panic all you want; I am having a drink and buying a round for the house. Only the tardish left is melting down as our blog host put it. The more intelligent ones have been red pilled. And sorry, but no, The Gay Lady does not decide what is important. Sheesh – I know people that actually LIVE in New York that are smarter than that.

Lecture me more, little one: you haven’t even fired a shot in this culture war and you assume everyone will get on that cattle car with you without resistance too. Shut up already, you’re a child who can’t grow up. None of those leftist big kids that are beating you up and taking your lunch money can fire a gun either. Nancy Pelosi is banning plastic straws while derelicts and degenerates shit on the sidewalks. Half the people that want to kill you and take your stuff don’t understand how a flush toilet works. Half of THEM are white. If you can’t or won’t defeat an enemy like that… you deserve to be replaced.

We win one election and you think it’s victory in a centuries-long war.
>The Gay Lady does not decide what is important.
>Nancy Pelosi is banning plastic straws, what a clownish loser!
You’re proving my point. The only reason you know or care about a local city ordnance hundreds of miles from you in a State you don’t even live in is because the NYT thought it would be fun to make it national news. How many ridiculous things do the various local governments of the USA do every day that don’t become national news?
>We have all the guns.
Yeah, and they have the universities, the bureaucracy, and the press. Which is the stronger position? Based on the last 200 years of history, I’d trade places with them in a second.
>If you can’t or won’t defeat an enemy like that… you deserve to be replaced.
You didn’t. You surrendered to them again and again, and that’s how we got here.

The pen is mightier than the sword up until it’s not. Without integrity or moral authority the NYT is a fish wrap. Not even lefties take it seriously anymore.
The universities are now also held in contempt as is the intellectual class. They can’t even hold their own narrative anymore.
Hell, they don’t even have the universities anymore – Jordan Peterson is preaching apostasy and heresy right in their own courts! And in case you missed it – the military hates them more than we do.

Nonsense. I said if you don’t educate yourself, you are throwing away your intellect and I stand by it. Like it or not, if you are going to be a mover and shaker or a big wheel – you are going to need an education. That is just for starters – you will need connections too.

Gates paid no noticeable attention to whether the smart guys he hired had educational credentials or not. Some did, some did not. No one cared, which means that acquiring those credentials was time and money wasted if you wound up working at Microsoft.

The NYT is the voice of power. I notice I don’t hear you daring to complain about those who openly voice the intent to kill you. If you don’t complain, it is not because you don’t see reason to complain, it is because you are terrified, and hope to be last to be devoured by the crocodiles.

A little chinkette is a racist that got hired by a once-great publication – but is now a mere tabloid reduced to trolling it’s own readers. As you note, the effects were immediate and predictable: they started ‘walking away’.

Bigger mouths than mine are on this – yours for example. And I disagree with you; if one or both of us are gonna die at the hands of these cretins I strongly suspect they’ll get you first. I’m a better shooter than a talker.

(1) born on third base, think they hit a triple
(2) want to bring the entire third world to third base, but leave their children on first with two outs trying to steal second.
(3) after it’s all over, they’re going to each explain how they personally, not as a zeitgeist, knew how it was going to end up

LOL. Who’s going to do it? A chink racist? Let’s just say anyone taking me for a soft target is in for a rude surprise and leave it at that.

Hysterics aside, if things DO get that bad and they start killing guys like me, guys like you will be playing hide-the-salami and fighting over food scraps in the gulag. Our current enemies do not have the means for that. They hate the military and are hated in return; you can walk into any school, mass murder their kids and they’ll blame the gun and cut their own in two to prove it, they can’t even get along amongst themselves.

These guys will last until the first bullets fly and then fold like cheap tents.

The people who appointed that “chink racist” to the New York Times, who control CNN and the rest, who are throwing conservatives off facebook, you tube, and twitter, are very powerful people who have announced their intent to kill you and everyone like you.

So what? I intend to kill them if they try. What’s the big deal? Honestly, for guys that are all supposed to be alphas and leaders – when will you ever man up and show some balls? Jim, I grew up among these people and I know how they think. Like you, they don’t want to get involved in any of that icky fighting stuff; they seriously think somebody else will do it for them. They’re in for a rude surprise when nobody volunteers.

Here’s how you control vibrants and commies: pick up a rifle, tell them to FOAD, and if they give you any lip, shoot, rinse and repeat.

Errr… you might want to get off the XBOX and actually spend some time with an actual rifle. Probably be a good idea to take the old lady along on that too. It may be time to grow up.

Counterproductive to talk about killing da joos. We don’t need the Orthodox Stephen Miller or the Israeli government switching sides (when they support Trump). The reform jews are a problem because they are progressive leftists not because they are jews.

2. Dialectically-opposing ideologues appoint genocidal maniac Sarah Yeong to the NYT editorial board to the uproarious applause of sitting Congressman Brian Emanuel Schatz, and FBI creep Philip Mudd uses his appearance on the Central News Network to call for almost a shadow government to come out (of the closet) in response to the Gᴏᴅ-Eᴍᴘᴇʀᴏʀ’s war-defusing diplomatic activities.

3. Edgy faggots on the Internet pivot from GTKRWN to Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

To future historians it will be subjected to intensive study as the greatest legacy of the Internet, and to schoolchildren throughout the galaxy known simply as the Great Meme War.

Leftism goes ever lefter, until it is stopped by centralized authoritarian violence, or until leftists torture everyone to death, including each other, for insufficient leftism.

This is inherent in the nature of a holiness spiral in the state religion. That is the way it always has happened, that is the way it always will happen.

See “leftism as cancer“. This has happened before time and time and time again, and will happen again time and time and time again. This is one more time of many such times. We will always have war, always have cancer, and always have holiness spirals in the state religion.

History may or may not repeat but it often rhymes. In the coming clash, though, I see several wild cards.

– the control of information: information is power, and the left has lost the power to influence or control public opinion. Only fools worry about outfits like the NYT. The Times is THEIR voice, not the public’s.
– the left has embraced every form of degeneracy and decadence it comes across: drugs, homosexuality, feminism, corruption – you name it.
– as an enemy, you couldn’t ask for better: they are all, to the lack man, woman and transgender – weak, arrogant, and stupid. Right now, Hillary Clinton is the best they have.

#1 is irrelevant. Only white male youths matter in war, and we have the great majority of white male youths.

#2 is wrong. Who has more guns? Who has more ammo? Who shows up to practice with them? How many leftists do you find at any seriously deadly martial arts class? Who lifts iron?

OK, you do see quite a few lefties at those supposedly more spiritual martial arts, but the presence of lefties sends the class towards spirituality rather than deadliness, and the presence of spirituality and the lack of deadliness attracts lefties and women. If there are lefties at a martial class, there are women at that martial class, and if there are women at that martial class, it is not all that martial.

“1) They have the youth on their side, including brown youth, while righties are old, fat white men who can no longer fight.

2) Even if they could fight, all righties are utter cowards who are good at complaining on the internet but will never take to the streets.”

This isn’t 1789- mass mobilization is irrelevant. The left takes over the cities and starts slaughtering people and the right just nukes them. It isn’t symmetrical either since the left is urban. The only thing that could stop this is if all the nuclear bombs no longer work. Otherwise any civil war would have an escalation phase, a (short) nuclear phase and crushing victory/reprisal phase.

Presumably the next major checkpoint is reprisals. Then organized fighting.

Yugoslavia’s breakdown might be instructive to study. One source (which I haven’t myself read) claims that violence was not general but outsourced to gangs of already violents.

Rwanda is another breakdown, but I’m not sure we have any great lessons to learn there. Perhaps that, like upcoming South Africa, the youth organizations, with the tacit permission of their elders, will do the dirty work.

Indonesia’s civil war may be interesting too because for once the communists were the ones getting slaughtered.

For the last time, chasing poon is what got is into this mess, from the very beginning, with the introduction of romance literature. You get one wife you have the right to use for reproduction, as many sexbots and artificial wombs as you want, and can use ther services of whores, but never their wombs, or it creates the moral hazard that brought us here.

We must not compete with each other regarding women too much. Compete in the sexual marketplace and get a wife, then leave the market except for maybe buying up foreign sex slaves, maybe even for surrogacy.

Women want us to spend every waking moment competing for them, except that actually they don’t, the slin majority of women would be happy with one husband of the same social standing, except for bottom 40%ers, who if they need to be shoved by the state on their husband’s cock, so be it.

Any polygamy worth mentioning would have dramatically restored strength to marriage as an irremediable bond.

I just want a 20-year-old at 20, a 20-year-old at 30, a 20-year-old at 40, a 20-year-old at 50, and a 20-year-old at 60. If we have to engineer a 5:1 sex ratio to make it happen, well I guess that’s a sacrifice we’ll have to make. We have the technology.

You can have as many sexbots and artificial wombs as you can pay for. Women must be rationed to forestall competition. I don’t want to live in a world where I’m a cuck if I’m not trying to figure out how to backstab every man to get inside every unattached woman. If I do have to live in that world, I’m going to cuck you.

Do you know why there are no young men in Christianity?

Because Christianity couldn’t control the young women, the men surrounded themselves with foreigners and fought against each other so that they could access them.

With a 5:1 sex ratio, you wouldn’t have to backstab anyone. Maintaining one woman is enough trouble, two is twice harder. Only very few men would desire to have 5 women.

Thing is, with a 5:1 sex ratio, and with a Roberto-style eugenic program in place (which means death camps for commies *and* legalization of everything), the incel problem will be no more. Supreme Gentleman was okay on diagnosis, but his solution obviously sucked. We are going to prevent men from going ER and from going Jihadi by turning quantity… into quality.

One thing that can’t be avoided is total abolition of all democracy completely, since with a 5:1 sex ratio women will seek suffrage. To abolish democracy completely, need a truly superior aristocracy to rule with an iron fist, possibly a genetically-augmented aristocracy of 180+ IQ warrior-scientists.

You might now ask, “Are you high, brah?” but all of these outside-the-box ideas are perfectly doable, if only there is a will to do them.

If civilization manages to withstand the current left singularity, amazing things will become not just possible but, indeed, very likely to happen.

All eugenic programs somehow end up reducing the male population disproportionately. That means that a policy of eugenics necessarily leads to a surplus of women. If the surplus is vast enough, competition for women either stops or at least is reduced to a minimum, so men can concentrate on the colonization of space and so forth.

Since fewer men than women, possibly much fewer if so designed, need to do away with all forms of demotism. Well this is NRx, so we’re good on that front. Not only should men be considered higher status than women, but the disparity should be positively amplified by genetic engineering that makes men into Gods-on-Earth, to be applied to the ruling male elite. This is no fantastical territory; the gooks are already on it.

Incel is a real problem, but ceases to be once eggs become substantially cheaper, perhaps even — socially speaking — cheaper than sperm. That is a reversal of Heartiste’s “Prime Directive.” Again, totally in line with the Jimian observation that for all husbands to be attractive in the eyes of their wives, the status of men must be higher than that of women. A 5:1 sex ratio, under absolute patriarchy, achieves that.

Sexbots are ewww; a real man doesn’t want to stick his dick inside a robot. Real women are fun, and if every family is required to maintain the 5:1 ratio, there will be enough women to go around, and once you have 2 or 3, the idea of competing with fellow warrior-scientists for more becomes unpleasant.

A problem arises with parasitical “free riders” who will not maintain the ratio within their own families, but will either let nature decide the sexes of their descendants, or perhaps deliberately attempt to produce more males than females. But I’m sure that with strong asabiyah, the 180+ IQ aristocracy will find a way to ensure obedience.

Another reason why competition for women ceases to be an issue is that under absolute patriarchy, fathers own their daughters till marriage, which means that those “backstabbing sleazebags” you have in mind will have their subversive sexual strategy fully curtailed. Unowned women will be “fair game,” but with so many options for any individual man, a higher status of men vis-a-vis women, and the total elimination of low-life scum from the gene pool, rape need not be all that common.

Reading through Sarah Jeong’s tweets, I think you’ve misjudged her. She makes clear again and again that she’s talking about “white leftists”, and she’s pretty much right about them. Seriously, how long could you listen to a skinny, smug white dude with a beard and man-bun drone on about “decolonization” and “intersectionality” before you lost your shit and punched his faggy face in?

A few years earlier there was a hilarious blog called “Stuff White People Like” that made fun of white liberals. Sarah Jeong tried to do something similar, but with the 160-character limit and her lack of talent, it just doesn’t work.

Maybe, maybe not. It doesn’t really matter, though. The issue is not that some overcredentialled immigrant mediocrity does or doesn’t hold hate in her heart. The issue is that the Great and the Good, the Best and the Brightest endorse hatred as long as it’s aimed at us. Our masters want us dead. Either we keep meekly digging our own graves, or we get the pitchforks and guillotines and find ourselves some new masters. I honestly have no idea which way to bet on that. Every social order looks like it will last forever until it doesn’t.

Our masters think the hatred is aimed at us but it’s really aimed at them. No matter what they do or say, they’re just as white as us except that they live in cities, have no guns, and suspect nothing because they get all their news from NYT and NPR. Won’t it be fun to watch blurry cellphone videos of them being beaten, raped, and killed by their beloved diversity, all the while begging for mercy and apologizing for being white.

just kidding…… you’re right, I’ve found myself arguing against people I respect deeply on three occasions lately here, and will be backing away entirely from commenting as soon as I can break the habit.

Nevertheless, I’m not retreating from the points I made:

1. Socialism, if done correctly (ie. no envy, a focus on solidarity and the health of the nation) is something we can colonise and make very popular
2. Evolutionary change from non-life to life is not a deep mystery striking at the core of Darwinism: on the contrary it’s just another line that doesn’t need to be drawn at all, no different to the whole ‘missing link’ nonsense
3. The current year is so challenging, so disturbing and so menacing that reasonable people can be wary of very real tragedy for their families

But look, none of this is crucial stuff. We all agree we’re in support of the white race, bitterly opposed to modernism in all its forms, and reactionary in outlook.

1. Socialism, if done correctly (ie. no envy, a focus on solidarity and the health of the nation) is something we can colonise and make very popular

We have tried socialism hundreds of times, perhaps thousands of times, in the last two dozen centuries, always with the same result, for the reasons explained by Hayek and Mises, colorfully dramatized by Rand, and simplified and clarified by Reagan.

See also my discussion of Throne, Altar, and Freehold. Freehold is not necessarily capitalism, and not necessarily free markets, in that there is lots of scope for state sponsored monopolies and state sponsored privilege, but it surely is not anything you would call socialism.

We should be one in those things where we should be one, and many in those things where we should be many. Freehold is being many in those things where we should be many. Socialism is trying to be one in those things where we should be many.

“Freehold is not necessarily capitalism, and not necessarily free markets, in that there is lots of scope for state sponsored monopolies and state sponsored privilege, but it surely is not anything you would call socialism.”

Ayn Rand most certainly would, and so would Ludwig von Mises, but since their heritage is becoming more relevant thanks to the J-Right’s behaviour in the wake of Jeong-gate, we can safely dismiss them as subversives.

It’s not a choice between laissez-faire camgirls, alcopops, X-Factor and X-Men
and redistribution, equality and incompetents tasked with production.

Your variety of socialism is simply the recognition of the fact that sometimes the market will give people what they want, and what people want sucks.

Nationalise the media and universities a la Moldbug, but to be honest at this point, nationalise the food supply as well.
NOT to redistribute, NOT to make things more equal and NOT to centrally plan the economy in the interests of efficiency or profit.

We nationalise the food supply because right now it’s failing spectacularly to provide nourishment and health.

We nationalise housing because right now it’s failing spectacularly to put rooves over people’s heads.

We ban usury because the Jews are Jewing us on a spectacular scale.

Sure, privatise later if it’s safe, but if it’s not safe, so what! Let’s be poorer, happier and fitter.

To be fair, a socialism implemented by clever and well-meaning people has to be better than a socialism implemented by evil and stupid people. Interesting that the second happens far far more often than the first, though.

But still the first problem is that you cannot staff the national food production and distribution system with good people all the way down. Perhaps only the topmost ranks.

That means the rest of the nongood people will not act against their own incentives, and working with stuff you do not own the basic incentive is corruption, so the food ends up on the black market.

Corruption is a problem even at the private firm, but at least they can go down when they get too corrupted and replaced by another one. I know one big oil company who was fed up by construction contractors bribing their purchasers, they tried a trick. Hired a green dude right out of college, big salary, with one job: if one bribery case goes past him, he is fired. So far works, but eventually they will be replaced by a less corrupted startup.

A case can be made that you cannot choose between allowing markets or not, but you can only choose between legal and black markets. For example Commie healthcare systems in Eastern Europe largely worked through bribing doctors. That is simply a black market.

I would not make this case, because for some reason Anglos are not yet rotten enough for this:

“In Britain, by contrast, the financial probity of the public administration, a legacy of the Victorian era (in which the state hardly impinged on the lives of individuals at all) misled people into a fatal misapprehension. They supposed that, because no public official ever asked for or expected a bribe, or could be easily swayed by other forms of illicit influence, public officials actually worked both for the public good and the good of individuals. People therefore came to believe in the beneficence, or at least the benevolent neutrality, of the state. Its officials were honest and fair, and therefore it was good.

I see the deleterious consequences of this mistaken belief in many of my patients. They often devote their lives to trying to extract what they believe is their due from the authorities, whose failure to provide it is to them inexplicable, since no one appears personally to benefit from it. If only someone in the administration would say to them, “Give me £100 and I’ll do it,” all would make sense to them: but no one ever does. The illusion thus persists, sometimes for years, that the authorities are genuinely looking into it. The British national pastime is Waiting for Godot.”

But still I would make the case that at least the limit value, the tendency is always towards the black market.

Sure, if by “nationalize the media and universities” you mean “dissolve the monasteries”, “nationalize the food supply” you mean “selectively tax sugar, corn syrup, and processed foods into oblivion, teach hundreds of millions how to cook tasty meals for cheap, incrementally devolve large-scale industrial agriculture into small holdings heavy on greenhouses and hydroponics, and make vat-grown meat economically viable”, “nationalize housing” you mean “disempower the home owner lobby from preventing new development, re-train architects in the arcane arts of pre-WWII urban planning and design, and enable housing discrimination on qualities other than price”, and “ban usury” you mean “liquidate the Federal Reserve”.

> > “Freehold is not necessarily capitalism, and not necessarily free markets, in that there is lots of scope for state sponsored monopolies and state sponsored privilege, but it surely is not anything you would call socialism.”

> Ayn Rand most certainly would, and so would Ludwig von Mise

I notice that the modern equivalents of Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises are reasonably comfortable with Deng’s “communism”, and would not call it communism except that in China you can get into big trouble for not calling it communism, so I expect they would be mighty happy with freehold, for even at its least capitalist, it does not have the problems of socialism and communism. “I Pencil” explains why socialism winds up with shortages of pencils and toilet paper. Freehold directly addresses the problem described in “I Pencil”

> We nationalise the food supply because right now it’s failing spectacularly to provide nourishment and health.

> We nationalise housing because right now it’s failing spectacularly to put rooves over people’s heads.

Commie nonsense.

The first and most obvious problem of socialism is inability to feed people, the second is inability to feed people, and the third is inability to house people. (The third takes longer to show up, because socialist inefficiency prevents them from rapidly destroying people’s existing housing.)

Nationalize food, wind up waiting in breadlines and getting bread without butter if we are lucky. Nationalize housing, live in big modernist Corbusier style housing projects. This stuff has been tried over, and over, and over again, always with the same result for the same reasons.

Every time food’s been nationalised, the model’s been the same: central planners deciding what and how much, and then front line shops selling what’s produced under control of the councils.

Why not simply nationalise (in the sense of state ownership) all the means of food production, lay down the law as to what’s allowed to be produced, then let the market decide where and how much.

Mises was completely wrong. There’s no reason whatsoever to detach finished goods from the pricing of the factors of production. Price needn’t be banished at all under collective ownership and state control. It’s not that it was a straw man argument, because the real world examples suffered from the problem he identified, but if you press Mises Institute guys about modern socialism (NHS, US Post Office, the old British Rail) they’ll stop you if you try to talk about the calculation problem.
The problem with the NHS, laying aside the food issue, is the problem with the USG: checks and balances making clear decision-making impossible.

British social housing projects were beautiful at the time of building. Sure maybe not the avant-garde ones but all the ones built since the 60s have been absolutely fine: green and pleasant.
The problem with modern council estates is the people and the things they do.

Tell me it’s not true then. Tell me that planned social housing projects were qualitatively worse than free-for-all patchworks.
Every council estate I’ve ever seen has either been a joined up tower block with communal green space or else a series of large lawns and pathways surrounded by groups of pleasant houses.

The trouble is, they’ve also always been full of litter, totally unkempt and peopled by thugs and wasters.

Let’s play a little game. I’ll post a dozen images of garish, run-down public housing complexes, half from Eurasia and and half from Airstrip One, and you try to guess whether it’s from Mother England or Mother Russia. (No cheating!)

If you’re sperging yourself into demanding citations, this will have to do because I’m finished with this discussion once and for all.

Thomas Carlyle, “Chartism” Chapter 4:

The master of horses, when the summer labour is done, has to feed his horses through the winter. If he said to his horses: “Quadrupeds, I have no longer work for you; but work exists abundantly over the world: are you ignorant (or must I read you Political-Economy Lectures) that the Steamengine always in the long-run creates additional work? Railways are forming in one quarter of this earth, canals in another, much cartage is wanted; somewhere in Europe, Asia, Africa or America, doubt it not, ye will find cartage: go and seek cartage, and good go with you!” They, with protrusive upper lip, snort dubious; signifying that Europe, Asia, Africa and America lie somewhat out of their beat; that what cartage may be wanted there is not too well known to them. They can find no cartage. They gallop distracted along highways, all fenced in to the right and to the left: finally, under pains of hunger, they take to leaping fences; eating foreign property, and—we know the rest. Ah, it is not a joyful mirth, it is sadder than tears, the laugh Humanity is forced to, at Laissez-faire applied to poor peasants, in a world like our Europe of the year 1839!

Carlyle is arguing in favor of serfdom and slavery, not in favor of socialism.

The debate at the time, the debate that he addresses, being that free marketers lined up with the progressives of the time against slavery. Subsequent events demonstrated Carlyle correct, and the libertarians incorrect. I totally agree with Carlyle, and you totally disagree with him.

In case anyone thinks I’m exaggerating, this is Carlyle’s final judgement on laissez-faire, and I for one entirely share it.

This really is ‘it’. You’ll either reject libertarianism entirely yourselves or you won’t. I can’t force you, and since we’re all allies for the white race, there’s no reason to fight over the economy. The economy will mend itself as soon as good government is restored, and then if you still cling to your Hazlitts and your Rands, you’ll be the leftist dissidents yearning for a return to the good old days of Maggie Thatcher. /sarcasm

“Alas, in regard to so very many things. Laissez-faire ought partly to endeavour to cease! But in regard to poor Sanspotatoe peasants, Trades-Union craftsmen. Chartist cotton-spinners, the time has come when it must either cease or a worse thing straightway begin,—a thing of tinder-boxes, vitriol-bottles, second-hand pistols, a visibly insupportable thing in the eyes of all.”

And there you have it…… 74 shootings in Chicago last week and an acid attack in London every day of the year so far.

Let’s play a little game. I’ll post a dozen pictures of garish, run-down public housing projects, half from Eurasia, half from Airstrip One, and you’ll try to guess which are from Mother England and which are from Mother Russia. (No cheating!)

Bah, prophets of Doom’n’Gloom were dime a dozen in 19th century. In fact, toward the end of the century even the biggest believer in material progress Herbert Spencer himself lost his faith and was predicting all the worst for the future. Carlyle was just one of the more muddleheaded and more frequently wrong ones.

I take Carlyle seriously. Don’t agree with him on Cromwell, though if Cromwell was demonized the way Stalin was demonized, it would sound very much as though I was agreeing with him on Cromwell. Cromwell saved England from going all the way to twentieth century leftism in the seventeenth century, which for all his faults is no small accomplishment.

But Carlyle was arguing for the durable relationships of feudalism against the short term contractual relationships of short term contract capitalism – arguing against the anti slavery free marketeers. That is not socialism as moderns understand it. It does not have the problems of socialism, because sovereign is not required to make all decisions for everyone – the lords have freehold. Feudalism is not necessarily capitalism, but feudalism, like capitalism and unlike socialism, works because it subdivides the big problem into smaller problems, because one man can plan without another man stepping on his plans.

To be honest Carlyle also argued for a large, state-created industrial army of labor, but as a solution for unemployment and for the fact that the perpetually unemployed were unemployable drunk vagrants, argued that being forced to work within military discipline could cure many and make them employable in the private market, while for the rest, it is better than welfare because at least they are doing some work and not drinking.

This was a public-works solution for all the dreg-tier people unemployable by capitalists aka “the dire problem”, not something to replace capitalism.

If one really wants a reactionary socialist, Charles Maurras is a better example, saying things like “socialism fits catholic monarchy like a fine glove fits a hand” and having cordial relationship with Syndicalists like Sorel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurrassisme

>To be honest Carlyle also argued for a large, state-created industrial army of labor, but as a solution for unemployment and for the fact that the perpetually unemployed were unemployable drunk vagrants, argued that being forced to work within military discipline could cure many and make them employable in the private market, while for the rest, it is better than welfare because at least they are doing some work and not drinking.

That’s fascist welfare and of course it’s better than social democratic welfare. But even better is Sino-Roman style chattel, where you’ve got free market in slaves.

The rejection of libertarianism merely means the acceptance of a not entirely free market. One has still a lot of room between a 99% free market and North Korea.

A good enough rule of thumb is to see how it worked BEFORE the invention of libertarianism. What kind of interventions an early modern or medieval state had.

Certainly not anything like public housing. As far as I know, there were regulations, but on a city, not nationa level and they tended to be about externalities like fire hazard, cow shit on the street or putting the smelly industries downwind. That is fine.

See, it is simple. People who can hold down a job need no public housing. What they need is cheaper housing and plenty of saner ways to achieve that, like safer neighborhoods. As for the poor, there are two categories, the unlucky and the dumbfucks. Give a loan to the unlucky. The dumbfucks indeed cannot choose meaningfully on a housing market and someone else needs to do it for them, but they need that in a lot of other things i.e. they need a legal guardian.

I don’t like the word slavery, “ward” is a perfectly good legal term for this, why go for shock effect, Jim? Why invoke the image of chains and whips. Just treat IQ below a certain level as an incapacitating mental disability and the legal framework for the rest is already there. Nursing homes for the elderly are full of demented people not oriented to time, space or person, and wards of their guardians, usually their children, but slave is not a good name to call them.

>That’s fascist welfare and of course it’s better than social democratic welfare. But even better is Sino-Roman style chattel, where you’ve got free market in slaves.

Roman slaves were war captives of all kinds of abilities. Here were are talking about people who are per definition too dumb to be profitably employed. Who would buy them? If they were buyable for normal work they would also be normally employable for normal work. So, buyers would be people who have something else in mind, like sexual exploitation, sadism or freak shows.

I would just find a competent blood relative and make them the legal guardian. Don’t laugh. IQ is statistical. Maybe Candace Owens would end up being the legal guardian of ten thousand fifth cousins. Eh, now that I wrote it down, I see certain problems with this solution, too…

>Here were are talking about people who are per definition too dumb to be profitably employed.

Under coercion and supervision they could be made profitable. The main problem is that as the natural slaves they are unfit for freedom. But under condition of servitude they can be transformed into productive members of society.

Laissez-faire leads to calls for socialism WITH envy: it’s not stable. The answer is socialism minus envy, because there’s no way to go back to the old-style guilds and lifetime inherited jobs.
Nationalising strategic industries (in the context of an anti-leftist administration) is a way to get back to sanity, because letting people fish for jobs is only going to lead to more and more and more gibs and redistribution and interference and cries of ‘not fair’………. because it’s NOT fair lol

Feudalism, like capitalism, divides the large intractable problem of planning into many smaller problems by giving each man sovereignty in his own domain. The lord is sovereign in his estate, and peasant sovereign under the roof of his hovel.

But explain to me, how would you deal with the problem of temporary slaves? For example, someone cannon repay particular loan, going into indebted servitude for a few years.

Unlike in chattel slavery, the owner (unless a co-religionist or familially related) has no incentive to treat the slave well. According to my sources, many such slaves perished under brutal overwork and malnourishment.

> British social housing projects were beautiful at the time of building.

Then as now they were a nightmarish hell at the time of building, intended to crush, degrade and destroy those imprisoned within them. Le Corbusier hated and despised those he intended to house, and wanted their destruction. These buildings were and are a manifestation of hatred for ordinary white people.

They were built in the same spirit, and with the same intent, as the liquidation of the kulaks.

“Then as now they were a nightmarish hell at the time of building, intended to crush, degrade and destroy those imprisoned within them.”

This is simply not true. It’s a libertarian lie.
The problem with council estates is the people and what they’ve done to them. The idea was green spaces connecting efficient housing with spaces available for collective recreation and targeted shop fronts.

Fill a (cleaned, refurbished) council estate with Hans Hoppy’s guys then tell a libertarian it’s Liberland and they’ll believe you.

Anyhow I’m out, I’m just talking past people and not helping. Most people here are ancaps who LARP about Trump. I have no problem with ancaps who LARP about Trump: some of my best friends are ancaps who LARP about Trump.

> > “Then as now they were a nightmarish hell at the time of building, intended to crush, degrade and destroy those imprisoned within them.”

> This is simply not true. It’s a libertarian lie.

And yet they don’t resemble the buildings that those who commanded that they be built chose to live in. The Corbusiers of the world choose to not live where they build.

If you walk along the street in front of a council estate, you will fill oppressed and dominated by the architecture, which says to the tiny mere human “I am mighty, you are insignificant, I will crush you.” The architecture projects a message of power, domination, hatred, and rage.

You may think they look nice, you may think them nice to live in, but walking along in front of them is not intended to feel nice. As Cathedrals pointed humans to the heavens, the housing projects turned their back on mere humans, stood over and dominated mere humans.

Supposedly they were nice to live in. Quite likely they were nice to live in, but people did not want to live there anyway because of the unrelenting hostility of the architecture, because of the spirit of the aesthetic. The aesthetic and architecture of a housing project is the demonic reverse of a Cathedral, and they would still be the demonic reverse of a Cathedral even if they had a fresh coat of paint, king sized beds with ermine sheets, and gold plated toilets.

> Every time food’s been nationalised, the model’s been the same: central planners deciding what and how much, and then front line shops selling what’s produced under control of the councils.

The model has been the same, but the actual outcome has been at best long breadlines, and not much to eat except unbuttered bread, and at worst famine and cannibalism, for reasons that have been explained over and over again, and demonstrated in blood, terror, and mass murder over and over again.

Jim you entirely missed my point about nationalising food. What I said was every time it’s been tried, it was tried WRONG.
I am emphatically NOT advocating left-wing socialism based on equality, fairness and redistribution of wealth.

What I’m saying is that a (relatively) free market in food is utterly toxic and that the mass of the people are like children and need to be guided like children.
Given the option of eating french fries, pizza, chocolate sweets and potato chips, disturbingly large numbers of disturbingly large people will buy them *even when they’re more expensive than fresh fruit and vegetables*.

Anyone who faces the reality of this, and is not a libertarian wedded to the NAP, will see the necessity of nationalising food until sanity’s restored.

The pricing of the various foodstuffs and the factors related to their production and distribution should not be collectivised. The state however needs the final word in whether a particular product may or may not exist *at all*, and right now, KFC needs to be shut TF down.

And, in any case, you want to socialize business for the sins of consumers, meaning you want to punish business for the sins of consumers, which indicates intent to redistribute status – redistributing status from healthy people to fat people. Supposedly fat people are not sinners, but victims, and we must punish the evildoers who did them wrong.

This, like punishing men for the sins of women, is the opposite of what is likely to be effective. If you want to curtail a sin, you have to shame the sinners and lower their status.

I’ve told you a million times this has nothing to do with sin. It’s all about security and the survival of our people. Life expectancy is falling across the West.

I’ve also told you a million times to check your own libertarian view on monopolies. The libertarian position is basically that monopolies are fine except where the state prevents new entrants from competing. They also oppose (state) monopolies on the grounds that Mises described in his famous essay.

I’ve also told you a million times that price signals will not be affected, and that small scale businesses will compete in the usual way.

The role of the state is to completely disallow poisonous foodstuffs, entertainments and activities and to censor out of existence all the toxic garbage that’s being spewed under free market capitalism.

We need to get rid of all the gratuitous sex and violence, all the poisonous junk food, all the degenerate music and all the mind-numbing video games.

The market is NOT GOING TO DO THAT!

Like I said, I’m out. This is now a hostile interaction. There’s not a single reactionary among you. Everyone’s a libertarian who finds it funny and edgy to be racist and macho.
I have no fundamental allergy to that: I like Christopher Cantwell as much as the next man.
But this is not reactionary theory. It’s NAP theory.

> The role of the state is to completely disallow poisonous foodstuffs, entertainments and activities and to censor out of existence all the toxic garbage that’s being spewed under free market capitalism.

You are an entryist, and that is progressivism thinly disguised as reaction. That is not the reactionary purity spiral. That is the progressive purity spiral.

Reaction deals with fallen men as they actually are – hence we want our ruling bandit to be a stationary bandit evil overlord, and view the primary problem with government as mobile banditry – that anonymous bureaucrats have, as Taleb says, no stake in the game. Immanentizing the Eschaton is the progressive program, it is the opposite of the reactionary program. The reactionary program is fallen governance in a fallen world.

Also, by blaming capitalism for obesity, rather than gluttony for fat, you are selling us fat acceptance, a classic left wing loser cause for losers. Supposedly it is not fat people’s fault that they are fat, but the fault of evil capitalists. That is solid insane leftism, envy and covetousness. You want to redistribute status from those who have rightly earned it, to those who have rightly lost it.

Also, by defending the brutal British housing projects, you are selling us the recently existent socialism of British Labor party, again, a classic left wing loser cause for losers, not some hypothetical reactionary socialism,

You are trying to get us into the prog coalition of self destructive self defeating losers who want to drag everyone down to their own loser level.

CR’s position boils down to, “The people possess self-destructive tendencies, and so the government’s job is to correct them.” That is classic fascism.

Since I couldn’t care less about the masses, since I only care about my immediate family and friends, who are all in more-or-less good health, what CR advocates just doesn’t appeal to me. Gluttonous people with zero impulse control *deserve* being removed from the gene pool by way of the ol’ self-inflicted coronary artery disease.

If you can’t be bothered to get your s**t together by maintaining a normal diet and exercising regularly, which is doable for 95% of modern fatties, why should I give a f**k about you? Drop dead.

I non-ironically support the legalization of all drugs, the more deadly the better, because fully legalized and cheaply available opioids, cocaine, and methamphetamine will rapidly rid society of countless low-lifers (niggers, fags, trailer trash, etc.) with no need to fire a single bullet. It’s effective and non-violent eugenics.

No joke here. People in this corner of the internet keep bitterly complaining, “We urgently need a mass-scale eugenics program. We are in severe dysgenics right now, and lots of people currently alive, perhaps the majority of people currently alive, will have to be physically removed from society so that society can function.” Sure. Legalization of suicide-by-substance-abuse is a step in the right direction.

And legalization of suicide-by-gluttony is likewise a step in the right direction. Legalize everything! Only high intelligence, low time-preference, low impulsivity individuals shall remain.

A libertarian ‘racist/sexist’ thinks the song “I’m horny, horny horny horny” is absolutely fine, as is a T-shirt bearing that title aimed at eight-year-olds.

A libertarian ‘racist/sexist’ thinks a pizza that doesn’t fill anyone up and contains 2000 calories and God only knows how much trans fat ought to be allowed for open sale.

A libertarian ‘racist/sexist’ thinks a film depicting live gay fellatio can be excluded from a ‘covenant community’ and can’t be forced on people, but also cannot under any circumstances be banned in places where there’s a demand for it.

That way of thinking leads to Walter Block’s catalogue of evil, *and then some*.

Reactionaries should have no truck with any of that garbage. We are under no obligation whatsoever, as thinkers or as a society, to tolerate this rubbish in the name of the non-aggression principle. There can be no such principle.

Roberto again, and this is it, no more lol (this is like clipping branches, very addictive but possible to say ‘ok done’)

“I non-ironically support the legalization of all drugs, the more deadly the better, because fully legalized and cheaply available opioids, cocaine, and methamphetamine will rapidly rid society of countless low-lifers (niggers, fags, trailer trash, etc.) with no need to fire a single bullet. It’s effective and non-violent eugenics.

No joke here. People in this corner of the internet keep bitterly complaining, “We urgently need a mass-scale eugenics program. We are in severe dysgenics right now, and lots of people currently alive, perhaps the majority of people currently alive, will have to be physically removed from society so that society can function.” Sure. Legalization of suicide-by-substance-abuse is a step in the right direction.

And legalization of suicide-by-gluttony is likewise a step in the right direction. Legalize everything! Only high intelligence, low time-preference, low impulsivity individuals shall remain.”

No, what that is is a fast track to the welfare state. It’s precisely what Carlyle correctly predicted in the ’30s: cut these people loose to sink or swim and before long they’ll secure not only a seat at the table but permanent assistance to protect them from deadly consequences.

Western Man simply does not have the stomach to watch thousands starve to death.

The question is, does Western Man have the stomach to take responsibility for the irresponsible, instead of subsidising the continuation of that very irresponsibility?

> Western Man simply does not have the stomach to watch thousands starve to death.

Sure we do. If we can socialize people to be fine with murdering babies four months after conception, we can socialize them to be fine with personally torturing women and children to death in large numbers.

At four months, they are showing personality, the boys are jerking off in response the prenatal hormone surge, they recognize the voices of their parents. And then mum has bits of them torn off so that they can be pulled out of her pussy in small pieces.

>I have no fundamental difference of opinion with Salazar or Mussolini
Mussolini’s architecture emulated that of Rome. Your beloved British public housing’s architecture emulates that of the Soviet Union. One is beautiful and graceful and inviting; the other is ugly and brutal and oppressive. Why do we find architecture so fascinating? Surely it is because it tangibly reflects the spirit of its creator.

>Western Man simply does not have the stomach to watch thousands starve to death.

Misleading phrasing. You don’t need the stomach to watch thousands starve to death. You need the stomach to watch millions commit suicide by gorging themselves on junk-food and abusing deadly drugs.

Western Man needs to stop being a sissy cuck, regain his testicular fortitude, and implement “goal-oriented” eugenics by legalizing everything that disproportionately kills those with low intelligence and low impulse control.

Once opioids-cocaine-meth is legal, millions upon millions of niggers and spics will kill themselves. The chemsex parties of homosexuals will become veritable death traps. Junkies will junk out. Trailer trash will either become rich through their meth labs, or will die pretty soon. The whole underclass, the untermenschen, the “degenerates” as you like to call them, will disappear. That’s modern day eugenics.

Western Man needs the stomach to look the other way as inferior specimens commit suicide by choosing catastrophic choices. Is it really too much to expect Western Man to be able to do?

You can’t protect people from themselves. Our current government believes that, instead of correcting people’s behavior, it’s possible to protect certain people from the harmful effects of their behavior. Thus San Francisco is a literal hole filled with shit.

> “The role of the state is to completely disallow poisonous foodstuffs, entertainments and activities and to censor out of existence all the toxic garbage that’s being spewed under free market capitalism.

> We need to get rid of all the gratuitous sex and violence, all the poisonous junk food, all the degenerate music and all the mind-numbing video games.”

If this is reaction i want no part of it. Sounds like a holiness spiral in the making.

It is not reaction. it is entryism. “Hey my fellow white male heterosexual reactionaries, the truest form of reaction is British housing projects, the latest Harvard college dorm rules on sexual harassment, and Venezuelan food distribution.”

Supposedly his socialism is completely different from Maduro’s socialism, but his mask dropped like Trudeau’s eyebrows when he started defending British housing projects, which are the standard issue horror show of actually existent puritan derived progressive socialism.

Just as progressivism is supposedly the truest form of Islam, and supposedly the truest form of Christianity, progressivism is also supposedly the truest form of Reaction.

Just as Jesus Christ is supposedly community organizer in chief, Carlyle is also supposedly community organizer in chief.

That Jews are generally agreed that the truest form of Judaism is to let Muslims have the Temple Mount should tell you that, despite their disturbingly prominent role in advocating white genocide, our evil mind rays are damaging them, more than their evil mind rays are damaging us.

Mises’ economic calculation problem / price signal system is actually the following: there isn’t really a big calculation problem in finished consumer goods. See food rationing in WW2 Britain. I can sort of work.

The big problem is with capital goods and materials and all that. I have these 100 tons of steel. At what part of the supply chain would it help the most with, say, food production? Use it to make more tractors? Mills? Trucks to deliver food? Spoons to eat it? This what is really hard to decide without a proper price signals system, and it was hard to decide, even under war conditions, even in WW2 America which was far far less war-socialist than Britain, but remember how the Manhattan Project was fighting over copper (or brass? anyway) with the army who wanted to use it for bullet casings.

Nationalizing the means of food production and letting the market decide where and how much has big problems by fucking over the capital goods and raw materials market. You seem to have the same problem as many marxists: thinking the means of production is something static. They are actually highly dynamic. Tractors break down and need parts. Eventually new tractors. Fertilizer. How to distribute them? They need a market. What is left? Land? Land is not that static either, it needs labor, hence labor market, it needs significant improvements, irrigation etc. Robert Heinlein wrote that the first two colonies of settlers in California – one of the best quality natural farmland – starved to death. I could not verify it, but if true it suggests that having land and good land is in and of itself nothing, sure, you can nationalize it but if you are smart you rent it out in long term leases making it practically private and then everything else that matters, that everything else that made the third wave of settlers not starve to death, from labor, knowledge, tools, require a market.

I don’t like it either, I am a feudalist at heart, not capitalist, but this is just how it works.

Look if I go into any supermarket, I see good food, nutritous food, vegs, meat, CHEAP. Remember how in the US in 1945 “a chicken in every pot” was an election slogan: meat was expensive. When I went to an ASDA in Britain in 2006, I calculated that a ready to eat rotisserie chicken is something like 20 minutes of minimum wage, don’t remember the exact numbers but it was impressive. This is something that works really well. Why mess with it?

The rest of the aisles with the processed sugary shit disgusts me, but it has simpler solutions. Why not put tobacco-level sin taxes on sugar and corn syrup, for example. That is a tested thing that works, nothing really bad ever came out of taxing booze and tobacco.

Mises’ economic calculation problem / price signal system is actually the following: there isn’t really a big calculation problem in finished consumer goods. See food rationing in WW2 Britain. I can sort of work.

Food rationing in England did not in fact work – in the immediately postwar period Englishmen were begging for food parcels from their overseas brethren, which embarrassment seems to have been deleted from history.

Around the world, various countries attempted to continue war socialism, and it all came apart in crisis and collapse in 1949 as the victors ran out of other people’s money.

As you suggest, if you just socialize one part of the system, that will not necessarily cause crisis and collapse. We have after all socialized banking and education. But the amount of stuff that was socialized in Britain and Australia immediately postwar did cause crisis and collapse. Maybe if they had only socialized the final stages of food distribution, would have worked.

Reading Carlyle rots your brain. Half the Marx is just Carlyle (Marx was an avid reader of Carlyle, which probably explains the convoluted and pretentious writing style). And besides, Carlyle was a great admirer of liberal revolutionaries such as Bolivar and Mazzini…
Brezhnev Stagnation was Carlylean Utopia and it sucked ass. Dump that shit. If I could I would force every Carlylean into labor camp to see how they like the taste of their own medicine.

Carlyle was a cuck who failed to f*ck his own wife! Furthermore he was friends with the worst of the worst of the scumbags he polemicized against, namely John Stuart Mill and the like. His polemics are more a ill-thought out friendly spat, rather than a full on political program.

And while we’re on the subject on slavery there were both much better defenses made of the institution and arguments against abolition, and penned by saner heads. No one would appreciate Carlyle had Moldbug not dug him out. People appreciate Moldbug and out of that appreciation appreciate Carlyle. Otherwise nobody would’ve cared.

They do, but say that natural, not legally enforced monopolies tend to break down. However, I don’t see much love for even natural monopolies in pro-market circles, trust-busting seen as the more acceptable kinds of state intervention.

It does matter who owns it, too. Happily, in a monarchic state, the state itself is privately owned, so if you think in that sort of framework, of course state monopolies are private monopolies too. Otherwise, in a public owned state, which means unowned, it gets taken over by the employees and becomes corrupted.

A monarchic state monopoly can be sort of acceptable as long as the state is small, because then it becomes just a normal corporation. However in this particular case you need free trade, because you just have to have competitive pressure, otherwise it will be too hard for the king to police every single fucking way the managers try to subvert it for their own interests.

I remember an insightful thing an economist from Cyprus said a decade or so ago. He said both the leftie, keynesian demand-boosting, and the rightie, free market thing is meant for big countries that make a lot of different things. But they on that small island cannot use it. They export wine, olives and tourism services, and import everything else so demand-boosting just means more import and trade deficit and free-marketry means fairly little sense because their whole economy is like half of WalMart and half of Hilton or even less, so the state may even run it directly as a corporation, or at least tailor economic policy to the specific needs of these industries and if someone wants to do something new, they can basically just call the government and tell them, it’s a small pond. But all this only works within a free trade system, where global competition keeps them in shape.

With a large country and internal free market keeping them in shape, external competition is less necessary thus you can be protectionist.

Alisa Rosenbaum ( But who even cares about her!? ) would, von Mises would not. He would call it “interventionism.”

>but since their heritage is becoming more relevant thanks to the J-Right’s behaviour in the wake of Jeong-gate, we can safely dismiss them as subversives

Ludwig von Mises was a member of the Austrian gentry and friends with Engelbert Dolfuss and Otto von Habsburg. He worked with Monsignor Ignaz Seipel to stabilize the Austrian economy and suppress the communists. In spite of his classical liberal political beliefs he’s got much more reactionary “street cred” than any of Internet LARPers ever will.

Oh, please. Don’t quail before authority. Never give in. Never surrender. Fight for what you believe.

1. Socialism is a great word to describe how best to order society on scientific, Darwinian principles, for the greatest good and the most noblesse oblige, starting with Supreme Court legalization of unrestricted open carry and me walking the streets of Georgetown with a Python on my hip.

2. If Earth is too harsh a climate for sub-RNA/DNA self-replicating structures, Jim should propose some more gentle options. What are we talking about here, Jimarino, asteroid clusters? pre-star galactic soup? what? Is it somehow related to the supposed abiogenesis of oil?

3. There has never been a more interesting time to be alive than the $CURRENT_YEAR. Your children and grandchildren will look back in envy at what you had the privilege to experience, e.g. a sitting Senator openly declaring war on your race, your people, your civilization. What a time to be alive!

Tell me what the masses of WORKERS (not dole scum) think about immigration and what it’s doing to their wages. Now tell me how they’ll swallow international free trade lol
Tell me what the masses of WORKERS (not dole scum) think about housing and why their kids are still at home in their 30s. Now tell me how they’ll swallow tax cuts and deregulation lol

Come on, people: if democracy’s true and good then we should put the best ideas out there to maximise the health of the nation…… but democracy’s nonsensical and rotten. We don’t have to be economists.

We have one task and one task only: to take our own bloody side.

Sarah Jeong wants us dead. It’s simply not enough to say “well we’re on your side, except for this this this this and this that’ll be bad for you, but muh principles”.

We have to say this instead: “Sarah Jeong wants you dead, the Democrats love her and here’s ten Jewish Republicans who love her too. We want to throw her in prison with the option of going to live elsewhere. Rather than hating you, we’re 100% with you, we ARE you.”

Those crowds chanting LOCK.HER.UP. were a big piece of the Trump puzzle. We need to keep them on board and what’s more we need to grow them.

If he does, I wonder what happens when smart top leftists get wind of the Left Singularity theory? Will they carry right on obliviously holiness spiralling, or will any of them have the cynicism to capitalize on it – ‘know thyself’ and all that?

Sure, but I was thinking it would be pretty cool if your theory of Cromwell, Napoleon and Stalin directly contributes to the rise of the next Cromwell, Napoleon or Stalin, perhaps earlier than otherwise.

That’s a good point. Thanks for that. I wasn’t imaginative enough to get it myself.

The more leftists out there who realize that “oh shit, I thought I was riding a horse here, but I’m actually riding a tiger”, the sooner the revolution might be halted. Maybe that’s the whole point of this blog, actually. Maybe it’s all for THAT guy, and to find and inspire him as soon as possible.

With “smart top leftists”? Unlikely. Look at the so-called “Intellectual Dark Web”: here are some supposedly smart top leftists who tried, or pretended to try, to de-escalate leftism. What is the result? Nothing so far. There are no breaks installed on this train.

The Cathedral is both centralized and decentralized, structured in a manner that pretty much prevents the emergence of Cromwell/Napoleon/Stalin, structured in a way that inexorably leads to “leftists torture everyone to death, including each other, for insufficient leftism.”

In fact, I’ve seen myself some self-aware candid leftists discussing the Jimian concept of purity, even jokingly (non-jokingly) saying, “The last leftist will be a black transgender lesbian paralytic vegan, lonely contemplating how she is not pure enough.” That was in 2012 IIRC.

So, some leftists understand — instinctively — the dynamic elucidated by Jim, but simply can’t resist the dictates of its logic, except by the use of unprincipled exceptions of course. Childless homosexual leftist philosophers, in particular, are aware of the self-inflicted misery brought about by their own ideology, and often outright defend it with, “There is nothing wrong with masochism.”

Anyway, whoever launches the restoration, if indeed a restoration is launched, will not be a bespectacled academician who secretly reads NRx blogs in between lectures.

Rather, I can imagine some 140+ IQ former member of the intelligence community (CIA, NSA, etc.) going capitalist, becoming a multi-millionaire CEO entrepreneur, then somehow discovering Reaction and deciding to use his skills to carve out an Exit from the Cathedral’s sphere of influence.

USG being mighty resilient, it is more feasible to escape from it than to topple it, for the time being.

So the Cathedral is so atomized out to the Nth degree that there’s no throne to seize in the first place, even if there were a Stalin to seize it?

You’re making some very scary sense here my dude. But thank you for making it.

So how on earth to coordinate all these people to work together when the other shoe drops… like… maybe an long-shot anonymous 4chan mystery school organized around some last remaining shared sense of moral outrage… or something.

Yes there is a throne to seize. Reflect on suppression orders for Alex Jones being applied uniformly and simultaneously across all social media.

Observe the climategate files, where Mann sends out a memo that certain results need to be adjusted, and every tenured academic everywhere in the entire Western world forgets that there previously used to be different results.

Reflect on the Colbert report, when Colbert received the new line on Comey as we watched – related we now have the email craig.minassian@clintonglobalinitiative.org which casually mentions Colbert receiving his marching orders on various topics.

Grab a dozen people by the testicles, give half a dozen of them helicopter rides to the pacific ocean, and half an hour later, Google, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, the New York Times, every newspaper and television station in the entire western world, every tenured academic in the entire western world, is preaching the Jim doctrine on monarchy, women and inferior races, and most of them would hardly notice the change.

> Yes there is a throne to seize. Reflect on
> suppression orders for Alex Jones being
> applied uniformly and simultaneously
> across all social media.

Yes yes of course you’re right. But “the throne” isn’t a particular piece of furniture, in a particular room, that a single figurehead person can sit on and then everybody knows and agrees who he is. Of course it never really was since Nebuchadnezzar, but least-ever so today.

I just wish I better understood what “The Throne” actually and truly is. (And if I did understand it, maybe I’d go crazy.)

The elite consensus?
The ever-emerging high-status opinion?
Satan the father of lies?
The princes and principalities of the air?

And how does it evolve? According to what? How does one try to predict and direct it?

It’s still a ghost to me, fuzzy and ephemeral.

I recall Moldbug calling Progressivism “The Mystery School of Pure Power”, and he was so right. So damned Occult, this stuff.

Good chance if it supports Trump, and pushes the Q narrative, it’s controlled.

The same group who controlled Cromwell, controlled Hitler, Churchill, Reagan, Thatcher, Deng are still controlling today. Hence, you’ll never reach the right, just a few steps back in that direction. They really don’t care about right/left, just about shitting on everything God ordained, and owning the whole world.

Give me a shout post-USD/GBP/Yen collapse, see how much they own then, being sat in physical gold ready. Greatest heist in history upcoming. Boomers will be devastated.

If Alex Jones is CIA, you’re going to have to explain why he crashed Bohemian Grove, favorite creepy occult ceremony of the George H. W. Bush circle (remember old Herbert Walker? he was Director of Central Intelligence before he was President), then cornered David Gergen about it, and most recently, was unpersoned by every noteworthy platform, to universal acclaim.

Come to think of it — given that ideas are more powerful than guns, what sort of power is there in Jimian theory? After Darwin, it is no longer possible to see living things as designed the way watches are, and arguments from design become ineffective. Even if this didn’t kill Christianity, any resurgent Christianity is going to have to get a lot more vague and metaphysical to adapt to it. After Marx, wrong as he was, it’s difficult *not* to view society at least partially through the lens of class war. And the fact that everyone in the west knows what supply and demand is, is a large part of what stops the Cathedral from sliding into outright socialism. If the Jimian theory of leftism ever gains the kind of currency that Darwinism and supply-and-demand have, what effect does that have on holiness competition?

At the least, I’d guess, holiness spirals would have to get subtler. At most, there might even be a negative holiness feedback loop – “Hey, cut it out, you’re just being holier-than-thou!”

Obviously identifying Social Justice Warriors as a religion and a holiness spiral has gone mainstream, though I cannot claim all of the credit, or even a large part of it.

The primary implication of my analysis is that holiness spirals in the state religion are inevitable if not stopped by deadly force, just as cancer in the body is kept down by the immune system spraying deviant cells with lethal doses of hydrogen peroxide, among other measures which are apt to leave a mess in the vicinity of real or suspected cancer, that every long lived civilization did stuff to keep heresy under control.

If widely accepted, the outcome will be that William Wilberforce gets shipped to Jamaica to cut sugar cane under the whip – that people staffing the state religion will get special costumes, and be subject to special and overt controls.

Of course you don’t want the inquisition to metastasize either, but historically this has not been a problem. The inquisition defers to the high priest and the King on matters of doctrine, perhaps because King and high priest are very much worried about the possibility that the inquisition itself might go holier than thou.

Another important implication of my particular analysis is “What happens if people take these beliefs seriously, or claim to? What happens when unprincipled exceptions get rolled back?”

Would Jefferson have so glibly said that all men are created equal if he had foreseen the civil war, the camp of the saints, and “asylum” for subsaharan Africa?

The Civil War was a war between economic systems, not ideologies. The North was industrial and the South was agrarian. Naturally, each reviled the other — naturally, the industrial was the stronger.

The Camp of the Saints was demoralization propaganda. It portrayed a fighting force of ultimately a few hundred True Western Patriots falling under the moral and physical onslaught of millions and millions of mudmen from India. But that’s not what’s happened, is it? Shadowy forces have spent many billions of dollars to transport, feed, shelter, and clothe the brown hordes that now occupy major cities across Europe, and the military men would really prefer not standing down as they are so ordered.

Some holiness spirals are real. Some are not. If Jefferson hadn’t said that all men were created equal, the men behind the 21st-century implementation of the Kalergi plan would’ve found some other rationale.

Forgive me if this sounds like whig history on the Civil War but my understanding is that South Carolina and a few other states chimped out before Lincoln even took office and that as far as slavery goes Lincoln was only adamant on two points neither of which would have much effected the institution where it already existed.

1) That he would not allow any more slave states, the territories were to be for free white settlement.

2) That he would not enforce or recognize the Dred Scott decision because in his view it made free states meaningless.

Lincoln was not a radical in the mold of Thaddeus Stevens.

I don’t quite understand why the South reacted to his election the way they did.

Also progressivism didn’t very far beyond banning slavery after the Civil War, it took Woodrow Wilson (who had Confederate sympathies) for that to happen.

> Forgive me if this sounds like whig history … I don’t quite understand why the South reacted to his election the way they did.

You are starting from the presupposition that the Civil War was about slaves. It was not.

The war of Northern Aggression was about holiness. The North said

“We are holier than you”

and the South said

“$*@!” you!

> Also progressivism didn’t very far beyond banning slavery after the Civil War

That is whig history. You interpret every move to make white people carry black people on their backs as whites oppressing black people. Since each such move failed to have the desired effects, leftists reinterpreted it as oppression and demanded something more extreme. Similarly integration is starting to be deemed the most horribly evil and genocidal thing imaginable, as blacks make escalating and successful demands for black only spaces.

There were certainly Holier then thou abolitionist types in the North like William Lloyd Garrison but Lincoln was a free soiler not a “radical” and certainly according to South Carolina’s secession slavery was the main thing they were concerned about… Lincoln was not a holier then thou type (he was actually pretty cynical).

For say William Tecumseh Sherman in my opinion the greatest general of the war (who did not personally oppose slavery and despised the Republican radicals almost as much as he despised the “rebels”) he fought the South because he thought if the South was not crushed the former Americans states would become a bunch of warring states like the Holy Roman Empire manipulated by foreign powers.

>People do not care enough about economics to kill. They care enough about sex and status to kill.

Who, exactly, is “people”?

The elites definitely care enough about economics to kill. Their continued boy-sex and Pedowood-status is to a large extent predicated on their political power, and their political power is predicated on their economic power.

The cannon fodder care about some combination of fear of being shot for desertion, fighting-for-one’s-country nationalism, feel-good religious stuff about salvation via honor and duty, getting paid, and mating prospects back home, in descending order of importance (at least today).

And a deep, deep, deep human drive, apparently for the most part unconnected to rational fitness-maximization, is just plain blowing stuff up.

Their wealth comes from status. Their status does not come from wealth. Economics is irrelevant to them. They know so little about it, even when they are supposedly top academic economists, because they care so little about it.

You mean the economists? Those guys are just soothsayers, rubber stamps to tell whatever lies the power players want made “official”. Integrity isn’t a thing. And don’t kid yourself, they’re paid well for their services: I’d be seriously surprised if a single major economist had an annual income of less than half a million.

Bob Whitaker had been saying political correctness is a religion for years.

SJW came from some Reddit or other.

Holiness spiral theory is all Jim.

The truth about women is all Jim. White Sharia was coined by an influential dude who got the idea from reading Jim and fighting the desert wars of early 21c. Pre-Jim, we pretty much had only religious traditionalists arguing that women must be controlled because great evil, which is observed, results from defying God.

More than enough to hang a reputation as the most influential philosopher of our age on, but I’ve never heard of the urbilaterian and Jim’s theory of consciousness elsewhere.

Look at the differences between what people said 5 years ago on /pol/ and now, notice where Jim said it first.

Jim and Moldbug started in 2008. Moldy initially captured the interest of people who like reading tl;dr essays, was a great popularizer to disaffected proggies, but was missing a bunch of stuff. Jim was always clearer about singularity theory and how it fits in with evolutionary psychology.

Moldbug was almost perfect in his analysis and breakdown of our current ruling system (in particular just how theocratic it really is) how it works and more accurately how it does not work.

He was not so good on solutions (his solutions were at best unworkable thought experiments) which Jim is much better on though I disagree with Jim on a few things (Jim is one of the few people I’m generally a bit to the left of on most things).

Igor Shafarevich wrote a pretty thorough description of socialisms, except that it wasn’t nearly as hostile as Jim, and left out the singularity part. Instead, Shafarevich was trying to place post-Stalinism in history, describing socialism as stasis, instead of stasi’s.

The political singularity is not all that connected to socialism. Political singularities tend to socialism, and socialism tends to political singularity, but you can, and regularly do, have one without the other.

> After Marx, wrong as he was, it’s difficult *not* to view society at least partially through the lens of class war

then try to learn. The class war is boogers and lumpens manipulated by aries to take on other aries and their lower middle class friends, not wage laborers vs capitalists.

Unions are the solution to the problem that non-farmers don’t own the land and crops and tools the way farmers do. Unions used to be reactionary, i.e. pro-actual-worker. They were taken over by communists and now union workers get everything stolen from them.

Speaking of land ownership I would love to hear Jim’s take on Georgism (as in Henry George).

Hes widely considered a kind of leftist but unlike most forms of leftism it works ECONOMICALLY wherever its been tried. Its just politically it always gets killed (landowners don’t much like it and tend to be powerful in any government).

Unions went communists probably as early as the 40s, in the twenties they were pro actual worker (ie Samuel Gompers was lobbying for immigration restrictions in order to boost wages).

I don’t think so. Georgists cite all sorts of successful regimes as Georgist that are not in fact very Georgist – for example Hong Kong’s ninety nine year leases. Georgism would make those leases year to year, or month to month.

A successful regime captures a large part of the value of, and revenue from, urban land, which gives it an incentive to make its cities nice, Dubai being a good example. That is not Georgism, any more than Value Added Tax is socialism.

Georgism argues that it is right and good to capture all the value of and revenue from all land, which leads to the usual disasters. You hit the bad end of the Laffer Curve, forcing you to replace private incentives with state command.

When the state tries to capture the value of land, runs into the usual Laffer Curve problem, which means that at high capture rates it has to substitute compulsion and state decision making for private decision making.

At moderate capture rates by a stationary bandit near the maximum of the Laffer Curve (Dubai, Hong Kong) works for the usual reactionary reasons: the man responsible for providing order, security of property, and collective urban goods has the means to do so and an incentive to do so. But that is not Georgism.

Calling Hong Kong Georgist is like calling Sweden socialist, and calling Dubai Georgist is just a barefaced lie.

Libertarian position: Zero capture rate of land value. Order and law magically appears for free because morally right.

Reactionary postion: Moderate capture rate of land value so that the stationary bandit evil overlord has the right incentives to provide order, law, and security of property.

Georgist position: One hundred percent capture rate because decision making by landlords and speculators is evil.

The best system of taxation is that applied in Dubai, which is not an LVT, but does in fact capture a substantial part of the land value, hence the propensity of Georgians to claim Dubai as Georgian. Copy what works.

What’s great about this development is that I considered the post-Puritans to be much more dangerous and more numerous than the Judeo-Bolsheviks. Due in most part to the tendency of cancerous Jews to take it too far. The Talmudic cancer tends to get itself destroyed in a generation. The Puritan cancer has been going on for 500 years and has its origin in bridal mysticism in the 1100’s.

>Since the focus is now on the extermination of whites, rather than the emasculation of males, the Jewish Question is becoming more true, and the Puritan hypothesis less relevant. But we still have plenty of action on the emasculation of males, for which thinking too much about the Jewish question is apt to mislead and confuse.

If the old-timey Protestants were so keen on male emasculation, why was 1950s Dartmouth so full of manly men doing manly things, why was Harvard monoeducational until 1977, and why are the Jews so often whining about frat boys, football, sailing, and lacrosse?

Jews, having been selected for scholastic dweebness, are on the whole significantly more effeminate than whites; though that’s not the big issue here.

The big issue, the interesting thing, is that Jews are brainpower-providers. That, after all, is why Jews are so “useful.” The old time Protestants, the Puritans and the Quakers, are the ones who originally wanted to prevent men from having sex. Converso Jews had to adopt this Anglosphere-derived meme to gain power and status in the Cathedral, and proceeded to apply their full cerebral capacity to rationalize it, in as Talmudic a manner you might imagine.

A nation of holier than thou priests, who often enough mysteriously fail to practice what they preach, is exactly what you *need* to come up with clever, sophisticated, bizarre, and tortured explanations why it is right and proper that you do whatever it is you want to do.

By the way, a downside (from the Cathedral’s perspective) of the Jews is the “wild card” phenomenon, that is, renegade disaffected Jews creating much chaos and much disruption by coming up with novel ideologies incompatible with — or actually in opposition to — the Official Party Line.

Extreme heterogeneity of thought, combined with strong brainpower, makes Jews ultimately unruly, which is why their alliance with Progressivism need not be forever.

If you understand that, Yara, you might just gain some unexpected allies.

>The old time Protestants, the Puritans and the Quakers, are the ones who originally wanted to prevent men from having sex.

And yet for hundreds of years they maintained the highest fertility of any indigenous group. That’s quite a discrepancy, don’t you think? Their closest extant equivalent is the pre-industrial German Anabaptist, i.e. they were basically English Amish. Which group has by far the highest fertility of any white population? Right…

>If you understand that, Yara, you might just gain some unexpected allies.

No doubt. I’m what happens when one crosses very high IQ German Jew and insanely high T Virginian Cavalier. Choose the right parent populations and the hybrid is electric.

Pedestalization of women started among the European aristocracy in the 11th century, but quite obviously, was not wildly embraced until the 19th century, for various reasons.

The rot set in after the outbreaks of Puritanism and Victorianism in the Anglosphere, when we learned that men must be punished for female misbehavior.

And, promptly, multitudes of old time Americans and Brits set out on the course to become the condomized, veganized, long-haired, gay-friendly, soy-addled, spiritual-but-anti-religious, TFR=1, low-testosterone, cowardly, Feminist cuckolds that we find all over the place in the 21st century.

Those who embrace the Victorian program, those who implement any aspect of the Social Purity Movement’s agenda, those who buy into Puritan and Quaker propaganda, inevitably become laughable cucks with broken households and little to no descendants. Every single time. To the extent that Germans, Russians, Jews, Scandinavians, and Frenchmen followed down that path, they’ve been faggotized.

> And yet for hundreds of years they maintained the highest fertility of any indigenous group.

whig history.

The Puritans failed to reproduce successfully. If you look at the geneologies, they are all descended not from the Mayflower crowd, but from the people who came over later, fleeing Charles the second, and not all that many people can trace their geneology to puritans. And those few of them that can, will say “I am descended from X, who came over fleeing Charles the Second or one of his successors, and X is descended from Y, and one of the descendents of Y came over on the Mayflower. Someone telling you they are descended from someone who came across on the Mayflower is like a real estate agent telling you that a house has a view of the ocean. “Descended from someone who came over on the Mayflower” invariably turns into “distantly related to someone who came over on the Mayflower”

If the puritans were hugely fertile, those who claim descent from them would have better stories.

And if we look at puritan founded churches, despite state backing, they empty out pretty quickly, and start merging with churches associated with different groups of immigrants, so either they failed to reproduce, or they lost their faith.

If Brownists/Puritans/Whigs/Evangelists reproduced successfully, we would see Congregationalist Churches all over the place, or at least see abandoned Congregationalist churches all over the place. We don’t. There are very few congregationalist churches left, and those that are left are the result of mergers with religions of non anglo stock and non anglo derivation.

If the Mayflower families populated the continent, then lots of people would be descended from Cotton Mather.

No one is descended from Cotton Mather. Puritan genealogies inevitably wind up being the genealogies of the Charles the Second wave.

If Puritan immigration was insignificant after the Charles the Second took power, why is it that everyone claiming descent from the original puritans traces his ancestry to someone who fled Charles the Second, not to someone who fled Charles the First?

If the Puritans populated the continent, why are Congregationalist Churches so very hard to find, and full of people descended from other ethnic groups?

The Puritan expansion was political, not biological. Puritanism expanded by state imposition of its memes against the children of people holding other beliefs, not by having their own children.

Whig history, “Albion’s Seed”, erases the Charles the Second wave from history, because it makes them look like bitter losers who hate religious freedom and were on the wrong side of history till about 1800 or so.

Interestingly, I am descended from Stephen Bachiler, who came to Massachusetts in 1632. He was a pastor who often got in trouble with the MA government or his congregants for teaching things they didn’t like and was excommunicated.
My wife is descended from Miles Standish, who never joined their church.

>and why are the Jews so often whining about frat boys, football, sailing, and lacrosse?

The testosterone deficiency of Jews was already noticed in the 19th century, when Max Nordau tried to fix it with the idea of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscular_Judaism interestingly it worked in Israel, producing the Dayan types, but not in the diaspora.

Of course, Nordau largely borrowed it from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscular_Christianity – take note, we actually need something like that, that was a very good example of how to make Christianity less brahmin-like and more warrior-like. MC looks pretty much like the new religion we are looking for.

(Not that Nordau lacked original ideas: he invented the idea of degenerate art which was later borrowed by the Nazis.)

Yeah, /pol/acks can’t quite wrap their heads around the fact that whenever they type the word “degeneracy,” they may as well type “shabbat shalom, goyim,” since it’s a Jewish concept – not unlike most of modern psychiatry.

It’s not a Jewish concept just because a Jewish dude came up with it. Rationality 101: Jewish concepts and non-Jewish concepts should be different in some observable way for the distinction to be meaningful. When you define Jewish ideas as ideas that are widespread and have survived for a long time in Jewish communities, that is a meaningful concept because you can say if they are well adapted for them then they have something to do with some important aspects of that culture. But it says nothing about a new idea that it fell out of a Jewish brain.

Long-term adaptation says more. For any idea, concept, meme to have an ethnicity, it should be that kind of long-term relationship as between France and cheese. Since degeneracy as a concept seems to have survived a century on the white far right, while disappeared from Hollywood, it suggests it is more adaptive towards the white far rightist mindset.

Now calling psychiatry a Jewish thing is a better candidate, because it all of the first four schools were developed by Austrian Jews (Freud, Jung, Adler, Frankl) and still a century later it is a stereotypically Jewish profession so there is likely something adaptive to the Jewish mind. I think it is simply the higher than average prevalence of neurosis that explains it. Doctors trying to heal themselves.

I wonder what would psychiatry be in a world without them, or what would there be instead of psychiatry. I think it would be more medicine-focused or lifestyle-focused, exercise and nutrition, less talk.

But “degeneracy” is literally indistinguishable from the traditional Jewish concept of “ritual impurity.”

A Jew 500 years ago would have said, “Fucking a cow renders you ritually impure,” while today it is commonly said, “Fucking a cow renders you a degenerate.” Perhaps the concept has merit to it, but it’s extremely Jewish – it is not some accident of history that Nordau came up with it. Basically, Nordau wrapped a fundamentally religious (or “moral”) concept in a secular-scientific veneer, as Jews often do.

If I ask you to define “degeneracy,” and then ask the other commenters to define the idea, I’d receive sundry definitions, often at odds with each other. Marxism is Judaism secularized, “degeneracy” is “ritual impurity” secularized. Psychiatry simply follows the same trend of Jews searching for the ritually impure origins of various mental conditions – within one’s own “soul.”

That the concept survived among right-wing whites rather than among Jews themselves doesn’t really disprove that. As I said, it’s not necessarily a bad concept. Jews nowadays just use as “racism,” “sexism” and “homophobia” as the secular-scientific substitutes for “ritual impurity.” Right-wing whites stuck with “degeneracy” because it’s politically useful.

The natural and right application of our natural instincts takes us towards our telos.

Degeneracy is the wrong and deformed application of our natural instincts taking us away from our telos – for example jealousy and killing a unfaithful wife and/or her lover takes us towards our telos of family, being a cuck fetishist and calling it polyamory when manlier than you fucks your girlfriend in your bed, beats her up, takes the housekeeping money you gave her, and drinks your beer, takes you away from your telos of family.

“Degeneracy” is a good word, like lots of other good words created by Jews, and eminently applicable to today’s Social Justice Warriors. If someone is a male feminist, does not really count as married, which is why it’s OK to fuck his wife and take the housekeeping money he gave her.

Bullshit. The Romans were notorious for complaining about the prosperity-induced physical and moral degeneracy of their people thousands of years before the Zionists got in the game. Ibn Khaldun’s idea of asabiyyah-driven cycles of history shows a good understanding of degeneracy as well. Your reduction of it to a secularized Jewish ritual purity zooms in on a small part of the picture and misses the rest.

And yet, saying “X is degenerate” was impossible before Nordau. Sure, as a collective phenomenon, decadence has been identified long before him. But as a personal condition, the concept was popularized by a Jew, and is Jewish.

So, as I said: a fundamentally religious (or “moral”) concept, explained in secular terms by a Jew.

If you forbid alt-righters from using the word “degenerate,” they would pretty much have to use instead the word “immoral” – but that would give away the game, wouldn’t it?

Hence my contention that the concept persists on the Right due to its political usefulness: pretending that you are making a physical-material judgement (“Doing X is objectively degenerate according to my scientific definitions”) when in reality you’re making a metaphysical-spiritual judgement (i.e. vices, sins, unholiness, etc.). In our faux-secular era we have little choice but to use faux-secular terminologies to express decidedly non-secular ideas.

Tacitus was not making a primarily spiritual judgement since he was a “pagan” Roman (which is not to say he believed in a literal Jupiter, he was probably a moderate stoic) and in fact denounced the Christians for “their vices” (aka being degenerate) and said that they caught on in Rome because in his opinion in Rome “all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.”

Tacitus btw is probably the best confirmation of the historicity of Christ since he is a clearly hostile source who nevertheless confirms the crucifixtion.

Degenerate, adjective: Having declined, as in function or nature, from a former or original state.

The great thing about the term is that it has a foot in both camps. It isn’t merely a moral/religious sentiment, it is also a biological judgement. One cannot escape it by relying upon Prog sentimentality nor by retreating into materialistic reductivism. If faggotry is a noble moral state, it is a degenerate biological phenomenon. If faggotry is a biological reality, it is a degenerate moral state.

>Tacitus was not making a primarily spiritual judgement since he was a “pagan” Roman

That sentence doesn’t make sense; religious ideas need not be monotheist in origin. Greco-Roman society was far from “secular.”

At any rate, none of the people who so liberally use the word “degeneracy” have a scientific, empirical definition in mind. They have a metaphysical idea which has been deemed physical by Nordau, for the same reason the Jews came up with various -phobias and -philias in the 20th century, -phobias and -philias which did not “exist” until the Jews invented the jargon to describe them. It is ritual impurity secularized.

The Marxist Left has Dialectical Materialism, which they say is a scientific worldview. Thesis-antithesis-synthesis, nigga. The dictatorship of the proletariat is nothing but pure “science.” Likewise, all people are equal, hence you are “objectively” a racist for noticing minority dysfunction and “objectively” a sexist for noticing women being disruptive.

It’s all extra-laboratorial science, wink wink.

And the Right says that e.g. fucking goats, sheep, and cows is “degenerate,” because calling it immoral — or indeed sinful — is just not how the hippest cats in town roll these days. There’s a reason why no empirical test to see if X is degenerate or not has been devised.

> At any rate, none of the people who so liberally use the word “degeneracy” have a scientific, empirical definition in mind. They have a metaphysical idea which has been deemed physical by Nordau, for the same reason the Jews came up with various

I use the word, and I certainly am mindful of a scientific empirical definition. Further, even the most Christian of Christians who uses the term is using it within the natural law tradition of Christianity, which claims the religious worthiness of scientific and empirical definitions.

The natural law tradition is the reverse of immanentizing the eschaton. Instead of trying realize the next world in this, we recognize the holiness of the fallen but still divine order of this world.

Phobias existed before the jews and will exist long after their philosophy of mind is forgotten. Some people are afraid of spiders more than others.

Degeneracy is when an individual is excessively self-indulgent, or when a cultural insitution promotes excessive self-indulgence, or when a cultural institution creates the scenario where an individual can legitimately find success by damaging society as a whole. Excessive self-indulgence is when an individual harms his success by chasing internal reward mechanisms. Individuals are supposed to get bored of internal reward mechanisms that aren’t promoting long-term success, but sometimes, for various reasons, they fail to get bored.

See, I knew this would happened; I wrote, “If I ask you to define “degeneracy,” and then ask the other commenters to define the idea, I’d receive sundry definitions, often at odds with each other.” And that is exactly what happened, and exactly what happens on the TRS forums whenever a certain phenomenon is examined, and exactly what happens on /pol/ whenever a certain phenomenon is examined.

“Are blowjobs degenerate?” cannot be answered by empirically testing whether or not blowjobs fit any well-established (or, to be relevant: consensus-approved) criteria of “degeneracy.” It is a priestly concept, and donning the white robe of the scientist, making a “serious business” facial expression, and gesticulating in an authoritative manner while contemplating and debating whether or not blowjobs are degenerate doesn’t make it any less of a priestly concept.

A religious person says, “Condom sex is sinful, abortion is sinful, debauchery is sinful.” You, being irreligious, don’t know how to express your objection (or lack thereof) to condoms, abortion, and debauchery, which is why you need ritual impurity secularized, which is why you need Nordau and those aforementioned Austro-Hungarian Jews.

That 6 gorillion alt-righters each define “degeneracy” differently, unable to agree on what is and is not degenerate, should tell you that what you are doing is religion, and the disagreement about what is and isn’t degenerate stems from everyone being a priest in this religion, and furthermore, from everyone being in denial about doing religion, pretending to do science. This is secularized Judaism par excellence, and you keep at it because it’s convenient.

> See, I knew this would happened; I wrote, “If I ask you to define “degeneracy,” and then ask the other commenters to define the idea, I’d receive sundry definitions, often at odds with each other.” And that is exactly what happened,

Not seeing it.

Do any of the definitions given contradict each other? If so, how?

My definition is not the same as the any of the others, but I do not disagree with any of the others, and I doubt that any of the others disagree with me.

As Stoneman very rightly says:

“Degenerate, adjective: Having declined, as in function or nature, from a former or original state.

The great thing about the term is that it has a foot in both camps. It isn’t merely a moral/religious sentiment, it is also a biological judgement. “

Does it matter that there are 6 gorillion different opinions? The very concept of degeneracy itself is an affront to Progressivism which admits the existence of no such concept. Things can’t have fallen from a previous ideal if all things are getting better, obviously. In order for “sin” to have an agreed-upon definition there must be a state church. Once there is a state church we won’t be quibbling about whether X or Y is degenerate, won’t be necessary any more.

To resist “degeneracy” is an implicitly reactionary impulse, whether or not people can articulate it as such. It’s a good word for us. The debates on whether X or Y is degeneracy are conducted upon premises that strike at the heart of the premises the Cathedral bases its authority upon.

“That 6 gorillion alt-righters each define “degeneracy” differently, unable to agree on what is and is not degenerate, should tell you that what you are doing is religion… everyone being in denial about doing religion, pretending to do science. This is secularized Judaism par excellence, and you keep at it because it’s convenient.”
It is convenient. What’s the problem?

It makes us sound like idealists and dreamers when we talk about addressing indulgence, but incentives are powerful shapers of behaviour.
The libertarians are spot on when it comes to the government creating distortions in human action by inserting artificial incentives.
They fall silent and feign impotence when it comes to the private sector doing the same thing. The assumption is that if corporations are getting fat on us getting fat, the government’s got a part in it somewhere.

One of the ‘pills’ that made me start to smell a rat with libertarianism was this:

By the libertarian view, people who expect the state to give them a comfortable retirement and free healthcare end up with an artificially intensified time preference which leads them to ignore the effect that rampant self-indulgence might have on their future finances.
‘Libertarian realists’ enhanced that model by saying that those who start out with ordinarily high time preference are most susceptible to these distorted incentives.

THEN, the libertarian tells you, if we simply abolish the welfare state and privatise healthcare, people with ordinarily high time preference will do just fine: they’ll eat right and corporations will get fat making us slender.

Smelling a rat yet? The people with ordinarily high time preference (low IQ people for example, or those with genetic predispositions to impulsivity, including all the AD/HD kids we’ve dysgenically fostered) will suddenly think about the long term when there’s a price tag attached, but not when there’s just little piffling details like HEART ATTACKS attached? ROFL

COME ON!!!!!!!!!

We need to take the Thomasian view on gluttony: food is a means to sustain life, not a recreation. There can certainly be competition to keep prices low, and narrowing the allowable production types will help with that also, but there *cannot* be laissez-faire.

Where there’s fried chicken, people will eat it.

Since we’re not libertarians, why must our hands be tied on this stuff?

Fixing such private vices as gluttony is hard, and your proposed solutions have had absolutely cataclysmic consequences: mass murder, mass famine, cannibalism and mass die off being very common.

As reactionaries, let us stick to public vices. They are easier. Gay parades get the paraders beaten up, followed by time in the slammer, and, in egregious cases, execution by being thrown from a high building. Gays that are sufficiently deep in the closet cause fewer problems, and are too hard to find, so we should not look too hard. If gays are a signalling hazard that undermines male solidarity, looking too hard for gays also creates a signaling hazard that undermines male solidarity. We want to persecute gays hard enough to make bromance easy, but not so hard as to make bromance dangerous.

We want to hit the Laffer Maximum on persecution of degeneracy, and socialist food production is way past the Laffer Maximum. Instead of unhealthy consumption of sweet drinks causing obesity, you get starving people engaging in cannibalism.

Chicken may or may not be a bad type of meat, but fried chicken is a nutritionally balanced food. Two decades ago you would have countersignaled egg salad and proposed whole grain bread and tofu as properly non-indulgent food.

Policing other people’s self-indulgence is beyond pointless – success is quantifiable as success regardless of whether “degeneracy”, for your definition, isn’t quantifiable as the delta between expected and actual success – policing self-indulgence is a moral hazard. If you can make someone do something they don’t want to do, you have power over them, by definition.

It’s not about morality. It’s about morbid obesity and falling life expectancy.
We’re not observing normal rates of diabetes and heart disease.
I’m not singling out fried chicken, it was just a standard dog whistle.
The problem is that EVERYTHING pushed by capitalism is toxic filth.

The idea that this is simply a side-effect of welfare and healthcare subsidies is pernicious and wholly false. I repeat: people who are immune to the future prospect of DEATH aren’t going to suddenly be guided by the future prospect of a medical bill.
It’s not welfare and medical subsidies: it’s the choices themselves.

P’Dimov the government wasn’t even trying to promote health. The government was trying to serve its donors while following its evil religion and retaining the support of voters.

Capitalist food can only be judged by its outcomes: mass diabetes and coronary heart disease, widespread nutritional problems and unhealthy flabby men with no testosterone.

Last time I looked, government guidelines were largely voluntary and consumer preferences were not reflections of those guidelines, so however retarded the guidelines were (and since when was I arguing in favour of USG?), they were not being implemented by private enterprise in any meaningful way.

Regarding degeneracy: there’s no need to draw a line here any more than there is in the supposed sudden onset of life in otherwise dead matter.
In a given situation, we know what constitutes degeneracy. If something of a behavioural, attitudinal or aesthetic nature triggers your disgust response, you’re responding to some kind of degeneracy.

Socialist food has never been healthy, and has always been in short supply. When I was in Cuba, people had enough calories in the form of flour, sugar, and rice, especially sugar, which was sometimes all they had to eat, but they were going blind in terrifying large numbers from nutritional deficiencies. Socialism fails to feed people every single time, for the reasons explained by Bastiat, by Ayn Rand, by Leonard Read.

You say capitalist food makes men flabby. No, lack of testosterone makes men flabby, and lack of testosterone is caused by female emancipation. Socialist food makes men blind.

I was there, passing as a leftist, and I saw. If you could not supplement socialist food with black market food, you got sick, sometimes, often, very sick indeed. In socialist countries, people rely on growing their own food from private plots, or get it on the black market, or similar. And if they don’t, they become ill, and in Cuba, blind.

Capitalist food can only be judged by its outcomes: mass diabetes and coronary heart disease, widespread nutritional problems and unhealthy flabby men with no testosterone.

Obviously whatever is lowering testosterone in men is raising testosterone in women, therefore feminism, not capitalism.

Obesity is primarily the outcome of feminism, while abundance is the third and least important factor causing obesity. And if capitalism produces abundance, while socialism produces famine and cannibalism …

As for the “widespread nutritional problems” of capitalism, check out socialist teeth. They look like socialist housing. Partly this is bad free dentistry, but mostly it is that socialists live on bread.

> the government wasn’t even trying to promote health. The government was trying to serve its donors while following its evil religion and retaining the support of voters.

Bullshit. Read “The big fat surprise” The anti fat, anti meat movement was totally holiness driven. Big money was bribing people to let them off the hook, but the anti meat people, being extremely holy, and much holier than those dreadful capitalists, would not let them off the hook.

The anti meat movement started off from the position that meat was unholy, and then went looking for “scientific” grounds for making that government policy. Much as global warmists start off by assuming that the technological civilization that whites created is bad, and then go looking for “scientific” grounds for destroying it.

“Socialist food has never been healthy, and has always been in short supply. When I was in Cuba, people had enough calories in the form of flour, sugar, and rice, especially sugar, but they were going blind in terrifying large numbers from nutritional deficiencies. Socialism fails to feed people every single time, for the reasons explained by Bastiat, by Ayn Rand, by Leonard Read.”

If you’re thinking of Cuba then you’re obviously talking about envy-based socialism: egalitarianism, redistribution, the assumption of goodness&competence, thoroughgoing modernism and the concept of Whig History taken to its logical conclusion.

Think beyond that. The Mises Institute has no problem with monopolies, only government monopolies because NAP. Ask Robert Murphy or Walter Block.

We don’t care about the NAP so what difference does it make who owns something?

The difference when the Crown owns food production is that the Crown can be absolutely sure that nobody’s eating poison. The Crown tells the industry what to do and the industry solves the problem of how much of what and where to send it in the usual ways: the price system!

The Crown monopoly is no different, at all, economically from Unilever taking over the food industry under anarcho-capitalism.

The difference is that Unilever would maximise profits in order to pay shareholders, without prejudice to the long-term effects on the consumer, whereas the Crown would maximise the long-term health of the consumer without prejudice to profit.

Sure, banning high fructose corn syrup probably WOULD hurt the bottom line for the food industry, but the Crown doesn’t care about that. Neo-Reactionary Cat holds values beyond the economic.

The price of a shepherd’s pie as opposed to a carrot cake is a matter for the employees of the food industry, just as it would be if Unilever were a laissez-faire monopoly in food.

There’s no reason at all why there should be any impediment at all to setting prices at retail outlets which accurately reflect consumer demand, and no reason at all why those prices shouldn’t trickle down (trigger warning! it works in this context) to the lower order factors of production in the usual way.

> > “Socialist food has never been healthy, and has always been in short supply. When I was in Cuba, people had enough calories in the form of flour, sugar, and rice, especially sugar, but they were going blind in terrifying large numbers from nutritional deficiencies. Socialism fails to feed people every single time, for the reasons explained by Bastiat, by Ayn Rand, by Leonard Read.”

> If you’re thinking of Cuba then you’re obviously talking about envy-based socialism: egalitarianism, redistribution, the assumption of goodness&competence, thoroughgoing modernism and the concept of Whig History taken to its logical conclusion.

Ayn Rand talked a lot about envy, and rightly so, but all of the critics of socialism, including Ayn Rand, focused primarily on the knowledge problem, which socialism suffers from whether it is envy based or not.

Nazism could not feed people either. Greeks were national socialists, and yet, for lack of food, the Germans took all their food and transferred it to Germany, making a good start on doing to Greeks what they did to the Jews. That was not envy, that was hunger.

Go read Chase Rachels or listen to Christopher Cantwell if you want to still be an an-cap while being fully woke.

We’re not libertarians we’re reactionaries.

I see laissez-faire for labour the way Carlyle did: a disgusting injustice that can only lead to calls for welfare and democracy.

We need Tom The Baker’s son to be a baker, with lateral movement possible but onerous. We need all bakers to be employees of the Chartered Guild of Bakers and we need all bakers to bake non-toxic, non-addictive, non-deadly bread.

> employees of the Chartered Guild of Bakers and we need all bakers to bake non-toxic, non-addictive, non-deadly bread.

Do you know anyone in a trade? It’s called the union and its function is to steal from the workers to pay socialists and train niggers, however, they’re stuck with it, because it at least means they’re competing with trained niggers instead of untrained niggers.

That’s completely ridiculous. What you’re saying is basically guilds can’t work under a neo-reactionary dictatorship because unions don’t work under prog pretend democracy.

Guilds worked for hundreds of years. Compare the craftsmanship of an 18th century table, spoon or mirror to a modern one.

The cooking was much the same. I’m not an expert on the subject but I’m predicting that the deterioration from Mrs Beeton to Nigella can be extended back all the way to the start of the progressive cancer.

As for niggers, Froude knew very well how to make them happy. It’s not rocket science.

Eighteenth century craftsmanship is the product of the apprenticeship system, not the guilds.

I plan to reintroduce the apprenticeship system to replace schools and universities as the gatekeeper on jobs, but unions/guilds are evil and dangerous and need to be kept on a tight leash.

For apprenticeship to work, the master makes a loss in the early years when the apprentice is unskilled and needs lots of supervision, and a profit in the later years when the apprentice is skilled and can work without supervision.

But this requires that the master can compel the apprentice to fulfill the apprenticeship. And that compulsion we will reintroduce.

“Fixing such private vices as gluttony is hard, and your proposed solutions have had absolutely cataclysmic consequences: mass murder, mass famine, cannibalism and mass die off being very common.”

Again you’re talking about envy-based socialism focusing on equality of all sorts and the transformation of the natural order into something else.
I’m talking about Henry V granting Royal Charters and revoking them when Burger King starts poisoning its customers.

“As reactionaries, let us stick to public vices. They are easier. Gay parades get the paraders beaten up, followed by time in the slammer, and, in egregious cases, execution by being thrown from a high building.”

Prioritise them, for sure. Perhaps once gay paraders, all night ravers and far out men are driven to conformity, the gluttony problem will disappear all by itself, along with the insane cost-cutting of modern housing (full plaster wall frame anyone? no thankyou).
But why take the chance? As soon as products start looking all Chinese in quality, take away their right to carry on doing it.

Business is not responsible for the food decisions of fat forty year olds in electric wheelchairs, particularly when the doctors are ordered to tell them their testosterone levels are normal (according to the new and rapidly dropping normal) and that the foods that they are choosing are healthy and desirable.

Chances are that the fat forty year old in a wheelchair is eating apples, bananas, diet coke, and porridge, that kind of government recommended diet being a major cause of fatness.

Making war on food businesses because individuals make bad food decisions is like making war on men because women make bad sexual decisions. Men are innocent, and business is innocent. Doubtless men are guilty of many things, but they are not guilty of beating faithful women, nor of murdering their own children, and business is guilty of many things, but it is not guilty of making people fat.

Putting a stop to deadly foods is fine – but unhealthy foods are healthy in proportion and in moderation, and socialism in food is terror, famine, and mass murder. If the King imposes terror, famine, and mass murder, he is apt to be overthrown, and his state is apt to collapse.

Hayek’s knowledge problem is demonstrated every day in Washington, was demonstrated every day in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

If the King tries to control everything, power slips from his fingers into the hands of powerful bureaucrats close to the throne, which is apt to have fatal results, both for the King and for his people.

>If something of a behavioural, attitudinal or aesthetic nature triggers your disgust response, you’re responding to some kind of degeneracy.

I know vegans who swear, “Meat absolutely disgusts me.” Sure, the problem is low testosterone in their case. But my point in this debate is really the point made by Haidt (or that should have been made by him), that your anti-degeneracy impulse follows from your own private sense of morality, and that the pretense that it isn’t so is rooted in Nordau falsely framing a religious-moral concept as a secular-scientific concept, as Jews often do.

And again, degeneracy isn’t necessarily a bad concept. But “are blowjobs degenerate?” is a religious question that should be answered by priests, and if you try to answer it, you should be recognized as a priest doing religion. That is all.

>okay, i’m disgusted by chopsticks and the culture of picking up your plate while shoveling

Convert to Islam or Judaism, pork will disgust you. Convert to Hinduism, beef will disgust you. Move to China for the long-term, dog meat may cease disgusting you. When you use the word “degeneracy” to explain why X is not merely personally disgusting for you, but is in fact “objectively” bad, as if your personal preferences / conditioning were science, that’s secularized ritual purity, and no surprise it follows from Nordau.

The other issue with “degeneracy” is that, by purporting to be scientific or at least quasi-scientific, it universalizes morality, which has always been the problem with Progressivism. To quote the famous lines:

“I will simply point out the error of principle that has provided the foundation of this constitution and that has led the French astray since the first moment of their revolution.

The constitution of 1795, like its predecessors, has been drawn up for Man. Now, there is no such thing in the world as Man. In the course of my life, I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, etc.; I am even aware, thanks to Montesquieu, that one can be a Persian. But, as for Man, I declare that I have never met him in my life. If he exists, I certainly have no knowledge of him.”

If eating dog meat is degenerate, then it’s as degenerate in China as it is in England, so perhaps Englishmen should set NGOs in China to bring the Chinese Enlightenment. Or perhaps invade China to fix its inferior morality.

Veganism can cause low testosterone, but I don’t see how low testosterone would cause a literal disgust of meat. Are prepuberty girls regularly disgusted by meat? Given that they are the lowest testosterone group.

Only possible thing is that there is a study that sexual arousal lowers disgust in men. But not necessarily through T.

Try buying a whole fish and leaving it out, or watching isis faggots blowing themselves up, all women and girls are grossed out by raw meat if it still has a face attached, as by spiders, snakes and mice. This is actually a good replicant test for trannies.

These things are all interconnected. Low testosterone people are prone to be easily disgusted, prone to have weak libidos, prone to be depressed, and prone to choose veganism – which of course further reduces their testosterone and thus amplifies their disgust reflex, and their asexuality, and their depression.

>P’Dimov the government wasn’t even trying to promote health. The government was trying to serve its donors

More commie nonsense – did the US try to overthrow Assad for the sweet pipeline profits too?

The government opposes meat because healthy food promotes manliness and vigor and their religion hates those things. People are still going to eat and they’re going to buy whatever food they eat so someone is going to make money selling whatever it is that people buy – but they could just as easily make money selling meat so that’s not the motivating factor.

> Carlylean Restorationist says:
> > P’Dimov the government wasn’t even trying to promote health. The government was trying to serve its donors

> More commie nonsense – did the US try to overthrow Assad for the sweet pipeline profits too?

Carlylean Restorationist cannot keep his shibboleths straight, as Trudeau cannot keep his eyebrows on. Obviously the universities are guilty on the meat and saturated fats issue, propagating pseudoscience inspired by hatred of masculinity and the superior holiness of veganism. To deny the guilt of the universities on this issue is a piece of madness that only someone dedicated to our enemies could swallow.

The reaction is a reaction against those bad guys, so anyone denying their guilt on a matter where they are so obviously guilty, and guilty in exactly the manner that reaction depicts universities as misbehaving in general (holiness spiral generating peer reviewed lies, madness, and evil), is a friend of our enemies, and therefore an enemy of ours.

And similarly, defending the socialism that gave us the British housing projects. Supposing that some desirable reactionary feudalist socialism could exist (and I rather like the way joint stock limited liability companies were chartered from 1660 to the 1840s, which was in a sense socialist, also in a sense feudalist) the British housing projects were the usual standard disastrous redistribution-to pets-socialism, and very far indeed from the East India Company.

So are you genuinely saying there’s nothing serious and disturbing going on with people’s health in the West today?
Are you sincerely arguing that diet has no part to play at all?

Or are you saying that sure there’s a problem but the purveyors have no culpability at all: the only party to blame is the government for publishing the wrong (voluntary) guidelines and providing subsidised healthcare?

I love how the clock must be rolled back all the way…. except when it comes to muh Republican economics.

What I am saying is that the primary cause of damage to people’s health is androgyny – low testosterone makes men fat, high testosterone makes women fat.

The second most important cause of damage to people’s health is foolish and evil government intervention in food – discouraging consumption of protein and saturated fat.

The third most important cause of damage to people’s health is that we are maladapted to an environment where gluttony is easy.

While the first two problems are easily fixed, this third and considerably less important problem is not easily fixed without gigantic collateral damage, such as the blindness and illness I saw when I was in Cuba, or the mass starvation and cannibalism we read about in China. If food is readily available, people are apt to eat too much. If food is not readily available, you are apt to have problems vastly more serious.

I am fine with sin taxes on flour, sugar, sweet drinks, soy protein, and polyunsaturated vegetable oils, but that is not going to have much effect on the obesity problem, and socialism in food is going to involve famine and mass murder.

Turning it into a state monopoly is pretty much the last thing that should be done with it.

Fast food can be healthful food; Chipotle is a good role model in this regard. The best thing the state can do for food is make it universally fashionable to eat well; prog food culture is the best role model in this regard.

Sugar and corn syrup are far more damaging than tobacco ever was, but are vulnerable to the same sort of abstinence propaganda campaign + very high tax.

The reason people are sick in much of the west is cars and computers and T.V.

Men and women don’t get much exercise and their bodies get out of whack

And yes granted some of the food is not good but organic vegetables and meat and cheese can be bought at the local Wal Mart for only a little more than the crap food . while not organic

I live in a highly Latino part of the state quality food of all sorts is everywhere on an EBT budget

What does happen though is lack of exercise.

Now on a personal level I noticed when i walked to work (45 minutes by choice) and worked a heavy manual labor job (2 hours a day in the morning) my T level was “High School Jock” in my late 30’s. Fail to work out enough I’m a dumpling

However getting people out to exercise is not an easy thing though , our technology and urbanization is basically an infertility trap

A remark on Roman notions of degeneracy or rather decadence. They were well aware that people compete for status, and they wanted them to do so in military glory and all the virtues tend to result in military glory, because, to use Turchin’s model they were located on a double metaethnic frontier under constant threat of genocidal war. The idea was that competing for status in ANY OTHER way reduces the effect of this, and the most obvious alternative was showing off luxuries and riches. Spartans had exactly the same idea. I guess if they had any idea that holiness competition can also happen they would have banned that too and if anyone came up with the idea of competing for status by toenail length they would have banned that too, because they figured that the only way to motivate men to be lean mean killing machines in battle if that is the only avenue for status competition left open.

And something like this underlines all discussions of decadence even today. There is a reason you want men to be manly and that is the reason, that if they are not ultimately at some point they may fail to protect their legacy. Or even have one. Every time we call someone a faggot we imply someone who would be unreliable in the foxholes. Because otherwise why care? (The signalling hazard comes from this, too.)

Interesting point. I guess the shift from martial morality to mercantile morality and holiness morality is due to the fact that Ashkenazim were educated merchant-rabbis and Puritans were educated merchant-pastors, and the alliance of merchant-rabbis and merchant-pastors made it so that high status is accorded to CEOs regardless of what their companies stand for, and to professors regardless of what they their studies result in, and explains why moderns feel compelled to excessively regulate their neighbors’ private vices (such as racism) rather than make sure that their neighbors can win a war.

This is really too speculative. When and where do you propose that change? America loved martial morality in the frontier and Teddy Roosevelt era, Europe had a strongly martial morality in WWI, WW2 was of course martial morality all over where generals were treated like stars, Europe stopped being relevant after WW2 and America emerged basically invicible and safe where martial morality is not immediately necessary for most civilians, being protected by a superpower level professional military.

Jews are good at coming up with concepts, though unfortunately also good at coming up with anticoncepts.

That the word has Jewish origins should not be a strike against it. Jews have contributed much of great value to our civilization, as well as much of great harm.
Would you abandon nuclear power and nuclear weapons because E=mc2 is a Jewish concept?

If degeneracy is an anti concept, explain why. If you have a better concept, explain it.

We have abandoned nuclear power not because of Jews but because the world apparatus of cattle control rests on the twin pillars of the carefully managed scarcity of energy (= energy standard_of_living ‘sex) via petroleum dependence, and the carefully managed credit expansion and contraction cycles by which ownership and control are monotonously consolidated.

We have to stick something in the catechism that will keep out entryists. On the other hand, the catechism is the wrong place for that, because the catechism is where you put unchanging antibodies against unchanging antigens, and our enemies,like influenza and cancer, are continually changing their antigens.

The way to prevent this in the future is to base Christianity on immersion in random shuffle Bible audio of Alexander Scourby’s KJV. The chapter count is weighted towards Old Testament, which roots out pozz with fire and steel.

I have been around for a very long time, and have been getting that feeling time after time. And after every dramatic change, after every dramatic acceleration, everyone does not see it, and recollects our past and their own personal past in line with the new reality, with supposed libertarian right wingers informing me with shocked indignation that they have always believed, and their parents always believed, what yesterday no one believed.

If you ask the question, you probably know the answer. The communists suffered swift and cataclysmic defeat, from which they never recovered. They committed gigantic atrocities. And Democrats declared it a mighty communist victory. The US pulled out, abandoned its allies, and radically curtailed military aid to its allies.

Tet is one of the easier red pills – in the sense of learning how information gets manipulated. Even Wikipedia is almost transparent, with a little bit of reading between the lines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tet_Offensive

“Although the initial attacks stunned both the U.S. and South Vietnamese armies, causing them to temporarily lose control of several cities, they quickly regrouped, beat back the attacks, and inflicted heavy casualties on North Vietnamese forces.” I.e. Communist defeat.

“The offensive was in America initially considered as military defeat for North Vietnam,” – of course it was

“but as General Westmoreland reported that completing the Vietcong’s defeat would necessitate 200,000 more American soldiers and require an activation of the reserve” – no idea about this part. Top brass are weird.

“Instead it had a profound effect on the U.S. government and shocked the U.S. public, which had been led to believe by its political and military leaders that the North Vietnamese were being defeated and incapable of launching such an ambitious military operation; American public support for the war soon declined and the U.S. sought negotiations to end the war.” – that word, “public”, used twice. Replace it with “manufactured opinion”.

No idea, but my guess is: after Tet was beaten back, Progs retconned the story and said they shouldn’t even be able to try so even being able to try counts as a point in their favor.

Scrolling further down:

“The Tet Offensive created a crisis within the Johnson administration, which became increasingly unable to convince the American public that it had been a major defeat for the communists. ” wait, now we are back to the narrative of the offensive being a success, instead of being able to try it being a success. Taking note: it is not really about accuracy, it is mostly about spreading negative or positive feelings about a thing.

“At the time of the Tet Offensive, the majority of the American public perceived that the war was not being won by the United States and its allies, despite assurances from the President and military leaders that such was the case” – i.e. this perception was manufactured.

Some further lessons:

“Far from suffering a loss of morale, however, the majority of Americans had rallied to the side of the president.” attacks from the enemy usually work like that. At least in the short run. See Milosevich, originally, bombing increased his popularity.

“Johnson, however, made few comments to the press during or immediately after the offensive, leaving an impression of indecision on the public. It was this lack of communication that caused a rising disapproval rating for his conduct of the war.” – this may be true. It is hard to out-communicate the whole media. Yet, this is easily one of the most important task of any politician who wants retain some scraps of power instead of being entirely Cathedral puppet.

“The New York Times article had been released just two days before the Democratic Party’s New Hampshire primary, ” – such a coincidence

“where the President suffered an unexpected setback in the election, finishing barely ahead of Senator Eugene McCarthy.” – totally unexpeted by the NYT editors, of course.

Soon afterward, Senator Robert F. Kennedy announced he would join the contest for the Democratic nomination, further emphasizing the plummeting support for Johnson’s administration in the wake of Tet.” – RK saw which way the NYT is blowing, and he was smelling blood.

I really like this story, because it is one of the easiest case studies in understanding Cathedral manipulation. It is quite transparent.

FWIW, I think Trump is your modern-day Stalin, as is Duterte and Putin, and the leftwards slide will stop shortly.

But that’ll still leave us deep in the left, not anywhere near the right. I connected some dots, having no bias other than trying to see the truth (i.e. I don’t trust any of the politicians of these times):

If my thesis about merging Christianity, Islam and Judaism are correct, along with resurgent (but entirely controlled) nationalism, it’s all being teed up with this speech. And it reveals he’s a prog:

‘Every time a terrorist murders an innocent person, and falsely invokes the name of God, it should be an insult to every person of faith.’

‘Terrorists do not worship God, they worship death.’

Well, of course they worship Allah, not Jehovah, but Trump makes no distinction at all.

‘When we look upon the streams of innocent blood soaked into the ancient ground, we cannot see the faith or sect or tribe of the victims – we see only that they were Children of God whose deaths are an insult to all that is holy.’

Same, but worse, as there’s nothing holy about Islam, they are not the children of our God, Jehovah, as they deny Christ was the son of God, risen again.

‘Saudi Arabia’s Vision for 2030 is an important and encouraging statement of tolerance, respect, empowering women, and economic development.’

A very progressive notion, but the Saudis are obliging.

‘That means promoting the aspirations and dreams of all citizens who seek a better life – including women, children, and followers of all faiths. Numerous Arab and Islamic scholars have eloquently argued that protecting equality strengthens Arab and Muslim communities.’

Arab and Islamic ‘progs’, as progressive as the founding fathers of prog-central, the USA. Trump clearly agrees with that progressive ideal.

Yeah, I could be adding two and two and coming up with 666, but seems it’s all driven by the usual suspects (((neocons))), it’s all going to arrive at the same end result, and the intervening circus-show is just a massive fake-out, Q and Trump are having a laugh at the ‘right’, and their plan will include the destruction and plundering of Iran (a very non-progressive nation), because they covet everything in the whole world, all of it.

Any arrests and imprisonments will be as real as the death of John Lennon and the imprisonment of Vox Day’s dad.

Trump is aiming to be Stalin – that is to say, halt the slide leftwards at its present level, not move things rightwards to 1660, or 1930, or even 2014.

But to halt the slide, it needs to be as dangerous to advocate white genocide as it to advocate gassing the Jews. And that would amount to a military coup. To halt the slide, need show trials or helicopter rides to the Pacific Ocean.

If Trump is aiming to be Stalin or Cromwell, and succeeds in doing so, he will have fulfilled my high hopes for him. I will be filled with joy.

My very highest hope is that he he proclaims himself God Emperor and does a Charles the Great and a Charles the Second, but that is a lot to hope for.

3000BC was not rightist – that was a bit before the left singularity that destroyed Bronze Age civilization, gave us a very long dark age, and resulted in massive population replacement.

What we want to do is go back to AD 1660 – to the time that gave us corporate capitalism, the joint stock profit oriented corporation, the scientific method, the technological revolution, industrialization, and world empire.

On a sufficiently large time scale there is no consistent trend towards leftism or rightism. The high point of rightism in England was from Charles the Second to George the Third, in that the puritans got the heave ho. Before Charles the Second, lefter, after King George the Third lost his marbles, lefter.

Leftism comes and it goes. Trees do not grow to the sky, but they grow till they fall over. Leftism becomes ever lefter, till it self destructs. It has destroyed itself before. It will destroy itself again.

Within the US, being pushed aside. If Brown Bernice becomes president after Trump goes to jail or is executed, the diaspora will cheer enthusiastically, but then be profoundly puzzled as they find themselves falling off the throne of Globalist Neoliberalism.

Democracy has nothing to do with the Constitution. at the signing, and well into the 19th century, the majority of free, White men did not have the vote / suffrage. Voting is a Lawfully a Privilege ( as distinct from a Right ), and the restrictions on that Privilege were entirely up to the discretion of each State.

the Republican Party mania for Democracy ( notice the joke inherent in their name ) arises from the end of the Civil War when, in order to consolidate their hold over the South, necessitated extending the franchise BY FORCE to Blacks. this was the destruction of the 10th Amendment and the forcible application of the Constitutional / BoR Federal restrictions ( which were designed to restrain the *Federal* government ) AGAINST THE STATES AND THE PEOPLE.

Marx didn’t invent Democracy, but he surely did advocate for it in the Manifesto.

Marx didn’t invent Free Trade, but he surely did advocate for it in the Manifesto.

Marx didn’t invent Free Love, but he surely did advocate for it ( and the destruction of the family ) in the Manifesto.

Marx didn’t invent National Socialism, he categorized it as the natural socialist type of … Germany … and claimed that it had existed since the 1700s
…
in the Manifesto.

If all men are created equal, then how can you deny some Americans the right to vote in American elections?

If all men are created equal, then how can you deny the right of a billion black Africans to come to America to vote themselves rich?

Denying a billion black Africans is an unprincipled exception, as slavery was an unprincipled exception, and very soon the fact that we used to deny them this inalienable human right will be remembered with the same horror as slavery.

It looks like you are saying a limited franchise democracy, limited to the competent, works. Certainly it works better than the current one, but I think you are not appreciating the core issue any rule of vote has, regardless of how many have initially the vote, that competing politicians have an inherent incentive to fuck with the voting system, initially it may be something as innocent as bit of gerrymandering of districts, but as political competition escalates it rather inevitably leads to extending the franchise and then finally extending it to foreigners, mostly by immigrating them and giving them citizenship.

Of course one can also think about why does the political competition escalate.

Corporate democracy works better than mass democracy because it is primarily wealthy white people represented. Corporate democracy works considerably worse with East Asians, and completely fails everywhere else.

What if these NYT people are as smart as they are crazy. What if Sarah Jeong was “on purpose” to make us flip out and go all beer hall putsch and get our butts kicked? Like that one other thing that happened in August, but last year.

What’s the synthesis here? Them trying to draw an off-side and win another victim medal?

The left has been getting stupider and stupider and less and less manly (outside its top financial leadership) with each passing year as it relies more and more on the coalition of the fringes. So no the NYT is not that smart and her being the way she is won’t make the mass of the right revolt (that would take either Trump’s removal from office or Trump fortifying himself under sympathetic arms and urging his supporters to resist his removal).

Stalin came from a rural peasant background and did child physical labor, personally robbed banks, banged women 20 years younger then him while under a sentence of exile, and read 500 pages a day. He’d be an ableist example of toxic masculinity today.

My theory is that they don’t really see it. Their strategy is import nonwhites, mobilize nonwhites to vote by stirring hatred of whites, win elections. They don’t realize that at some point “kill all whites” will cease to be the harmless, ironic, unserious thing one says to obtain votes and will acquire a literal meaning.

The Khmer Rogue didn’t start out thinking they were going to torture almost everyone they could get their hands on (including themselves to death) for not being perfect leftists but that is how it ended up.

So they don’t mean themselves though if the left is not stopped it will include themselves. The best thing about these awful people is no matter which side wins they die (I hate white shitlibs far more then anyone by far).

I don’t propose this draw-the-off-sides strategy hypothesis as an alternative explanation to the above, but rather as an ‘and’. An ‘also’ kind of thing. Tactics not goals.

Because I’ll tell you this: Getting tricked into under-estimating the intelligence of your enemy is a great way to get your ass kicked. And if this is a genocidal enemy that we’re talking about then this isn’t just for forum flame points anymore, you dig?

Power is always competitive and top proggies are terrifyingly intelligent. However, there are not enough of them. They can only respond to the most urgent of crises, and events are steadily outpacing their raw command bandwidth.

Because proggies employ bioleninists, places like the NYT become steadily less appealing places to work. They ghettoify, often rapidly. Result being that their administration is left to toadies. What use is power if you can’t make other people do unpleasant jobs so you don’t have to?

Half the point of having a sycophant run NYT is to avoid the risk of getting high on your own supply, but naturally this means the toady will. They are dumb and have even less resistance. Thus they hire what’s-her-face.

We have plenty of Left Singularity examples in history. I always refer back to the Russian Revolution and Khmer Rouge myself, because I feel that I at least understand those events/processes at the Kindergarten level.

We here today have this mental framework of Left Singularity, which has to do with evolutionary psychology, envy for other people’s apples, and the mass sum playing-out of each individual’s instinctual fears of murder and/or failure to reproduce. OK.

But that’s looking backward.

What I want to know is this:

What do we know about the mind-frame of particularly perceptive and forward-thinking people who lived during those places and times, back then, while those Left Singularities were mounting? ‘Who could mentally plot out the datapoints and curves, connect them with lines, extrapolate where the ride was going, and thus smell the Rivers of Blood coming their way.

What do we know about how THEY understood what was happening?

There’s Ipuwer and his Admonitions. I really should actually read those before someone calls my bluff on not having done so.

But what other examples can you all point to, of people who had “binoculars” similar to ours today, but back then, and what they say through them, and how they described what they saw?

An excellent but particularly difficult question. In general, those with binoculars pick up and flee rather early in the process, and thus have no incentive to write about it as it’s happening, since they’re living, relatively comfortably, very much elsewhere.

One would have to be a moron to have binoculars and not be very much in the process of arranging an exit from the Imperial Core Territories. It is much easier to leave before the gravity field engages. 2020 is going to be a clusterfuck no matter who wins, and a certain clique of sophisticates may suddenly rediscover their whisker-twiddling appreciation for impenetrable borders.

I would like to put forward something that I have NEVER found addressed anywhere online, and which does NOT appear to have occurred to anyone:

during an abortion procedure, the delicacy or care with which it is performed can make all the difference in a young woman’s FUTURE fertility. I know anecdotally of at least 3 women who could not bring a baby to term later in life because of things like incompetent cervixes.
If a doctor performing abortions during the politically contentious 80’s and early 90’s

I would like to put forward something that I have NEVER found addressed anywhere online, and which does NOT appear to have occurred to anyone:

during an abortion procedure, the delicacy or care with which it is performed can make ALL the difference in a young woman’s FUTURE fertility.
I know anecdotally of at least 3 women who could not bring a baby to term later in life because of things like incompetent cervixes and trashed uteruses, caused by first-trimester abortions which they had undergone during their teens.
If doctors performing abortions decades ago wished to SELECTIVELY render any of their patients infertile in future (by furtively OVER-doing the amount of cervical dilation or by roughly or hurredly performing the curettage), there would have been nothing to stop them from doing so.
NO literature that I know of has presented this potential or possibility, diabolical as it is.
There is obviously no way to access statistics or records about this sort of thing due to the extremely contentious political nature of abortion (especially during the 80’s and 90’s).
Absolute discretion, nay secrecy, surrounded such procedures for hundreds of thousands of young women, the doctors performing them, and the clinics which offered them.
Thus, within this fog, anything could have been going on.

In the fog of war between “Pro-Choice” and “Pro-Life”, during all those distractions, no one bothered to ask about the vagaries of abortion procedures, about ways in which the Hippocratic Oath could be violated by doctors seeking to selectively sterilise young women as part of a larger ethnic cleansing of society.
What are the demographics of doctors who perform abortions? Are certain ethnic groups over-represented amongst their numbers?
I have a Jewish friend who, by her early 20’s, had undergone THREE abortions (to the point where it obviously represented a form of birth control for her), one of which was second-trimester, and yet in her late 30’s was able to bear children without complications and raise a family. The friends that I mentioned at the beginning of this piece here are all goy – and that is what had got me thinking about this. Black community leaders have raised their suspicions about abortion in general, but again, not by querying about future fertility.

I of course understand that anecdotal information is not enough to substantiate anything in this world – nevertheless,

does anyone out there know anything, or is this, in a word, just “hysteria”?

You have fact some sort of good internet marketer. Your website packing tempo is actually awesome. It appears that what you are doing every distinctive key. In addition, This items are generally masterwork learn Spanish. you’ve got carried out an incredible task in this particular subject!